Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Prevailing Wind

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air on how many days between 1st January and 30th June, 1956, the wind blew from a north and easterly direction as compared with a south and westerly direction; and what is now officially accepted as the prevailing wind over the British Isles.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): I am circulating with the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of wind direction for different parts of the country. Taking the country as a whole, north-easterly winds were unusually frequent during this period, but south-westerly winds were still predominant, and this must continue to be regarded as the prevailing direction.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: If we are to get a great deal of east wind in the future, will my hon. Friend inform the Minister of Fuel and Power that we shall want some more coal? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air whether, from his recent experience he can state that the eastern breezes are likely to be a little more friendly and benevolent in future?

Mr. Soames: The easterly winds are what they are, and the westerly winds continue to be warmer and generally more agreeable.

Mr. Holmes: Will the hon. Gentleman inform his hon. Friend that the mining community is inviting new recruits for the mining industry?

Following are the particulars of wind direction:

Number of days, during the period January to June, 1956, on which the wind blew from north or east, or from south or west, in different areas of the British Isles:


—
North or easterly winds
South or westerly winds


N.E. England
81
76


S.E. England
60
85


S.W. England
71
94


N.E. Scotland
51
121


Clyde Area
62
95


Northern Ireland
63
105

The figures do not necessarily indicate complete days, but include fractions of different days.

For the remainder of the period the wind was light and variable.

Schools, Aden

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) if he will make a statement on the school facilities provided for the children of Royal Air Force parents at Khormaksar and Steamer Point, Aden, with particular reference to the number of primary and secondary schoolchildren for whom education is being provided and the character of the facilities available;
(2) what complaints he has received about the character of school facilities for the children of Royal Air Force parents in Aden; and what action he is taking;
(3) what proposals he has under consideration for a new school for the children of Royal Air Force parents in Aden; and when work on this project will begin.

Mr. Soames: Primary education is provided at Khormaksar and Steamer Point for 299 children, including 279 of R.A.F. parents. Secondary education is provided at Khormaksar for 102 children, including 89 of R.A.F. parents. Although we have received no complaints, my right hon. Friend realises that the accommodation is unsatisfactory. We plan to build a new school at Khormaksar which will provide, under one roof, primary and secondary school facilities for most of the children at Khormaksar and Steamer Point. A few of the younger children at Steamer Point will continue to attend the primary school there, to avoid travelling.

Mr. Swingler: On the assumption that so long as this base exists the Minister should act vigorously for the welfare of the children of Service men, may I ask the hon. Gentleman the following questions? First, is it a fact that some infants have to travel 14 miles daily in order to attend school, and is that not very undesirable? Secondly, is it the fact that the secondary school lacks most of the secondary facilities that such a school should have? Thirdly, would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how long the plans for the new school have been on the stocks, and can he give a date when work will actually commence?

Mr. Soames: We realise that the position is unsatisfactory. That is why we are planning to go ahead and build this new primary and secondary school. We hope to be able to start early next year.

Installations, Ceylon

Sir D. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Ceylonese are employed directly or indirectly at the Royal Air Force installations in Ceylon; and the estimated annual cost to the British taxpayer of maintaining these installations.

Mr. Soames: The number of locally entered employees is about 2,000, and the annual cost of maintaining the installations is about £1·5 million.

Sir D. Gammans: Can my hon. Friend say whether any arrangements have been made to give financial help to any men who may lose their employment as a result of these new arrangements?

Mr. Soames: When a statement was made at the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference it said that the representatives of the two Governments would meet at an early date in London and later in Colombo to make the detailed arrangements in regard to these matters, and I have no doubt that both Governments will bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend.

U.S.S.R. (Minister's Visit)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on his official discussions with Mr. Khrushchev during his recent visit to Moscow.

Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend had no formal discussions but certain matters of common interest were discussed.

Mr. Fletcher: Apparently the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend had some informal and unofficial talks with Mr. Khrushchev about which various reports have been given. Could he persuade his right hon. Friend to give us an account of what happened then?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend had no formal discussions. The discussions that did take place were in private, and I doubt very much whether he would wish to make a statement about them.

Airmen (Raincoats)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that airmen must buy their raincoats; and if he will ensure that they get a free issue in future.

Mr. Soames: In present circumstances, we are not able to make a free issue of raincoats.

Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman has not got the money? Is it logical to give airmen a greatcoat to keep out the cold and not give them a raincoat to protect them from the rain? The hon. Gentleman cannot do the one without the other. Is it a matter of money?

Mr. Soames: Money, of course, does enter into the matter. Greatcoats and groundsheets are issued, but to issue raincoats would cost between £1 million and £2 million, with a recurring cost of up to £1 million a year.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not important that this matter should be looked into if we are to make the Service sufficiently attractive to young men and be able to do away with National Service?

Mr. Soames: It certainly has been looked into, along with a good many other things that we should like to do if we could.

Fighter Command Re-equipment (Aircraft)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Secretary of State for Air what plans he has for re-equipping Fighter Command with


high performance aircraft already developed by our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Allies, thus relieving the taxpayer of the cost of development of comparable replacement aircraft for Fighter Command.

Mr. Soames: At the moment, we are re-equipping Fighter Command with Hunters and Javelins. Major development work on these aircraft is already complete. Certainly there is much to be gained from co-operation with our Allies in the field of research and development, but it would be a mistake to assume that the purchase or manufacture of aircraft developed by other countries would necessarily relieve us of any substantial expense.

Dr. Broughton: Does not the Minister agree that, in order to avoid duplication within N.A.T.O., it would be better to re-equip Fighter Command, as replacements become necessary, with excellent high-performance aircraft of our Allies, and to concentrate our efforts on developing more advanced types of fighters?

Mr. Soames: There are two major difficulties about re-equipping with aircraft from America. First, there is a considerable dollar expenditure involved; and second, fighter aircraft are only a part of the whole defence system, of which the control and reporting system is an equally important part. The control and reporting system in this country is quite different from that in the United States, and all our fighters are geared to our system and American fighters are geared to the American system. By that I do not mean to imply that we will never buy any aircraft from our Allies, but I am only pointing out that it is not necessarily as easy as may appear at first sight.

Hollinghurst Report (Recommendations)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air which of the recommendations of the second Hollinghurst Report have been adopted.

Mr. Soames: A number of the recommendations are still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a comprehensive statement.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State himself

referred to this matter as long ago as the Air Estimates debate? Surely some decisions have been come to, particularly in such matters as the centralised servicing of aircraft, which might result in a considerable saving in skilled manpower?

Mr. Soames: The Committee was set up in June last year, and its Report was received in December last year. Certainly, my right hon. Friend referred to it in the Air Estimates debate, and it was natural that he should do so, but there were 34 recommendations, and a number of them are still under discussion within the Department. When the time comes, and the whole thing is settled, my right hon. Friend will be in a position to say much more.

Mr. de Freitas: Since there were 34 recommendations, will not the hon. Gentleman speed up this matter, with a view to getting some results, because time is passing?

Mr. Soames: It is going very well.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Aberdeen—Ballater

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the proposed electrification of the Deeside railway between the city of Aberdeen and the town of Ballater.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): We know of no proposal to electrify the railway between Aberdeen and Ballater.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister make himself au fait with what is happening in Scotland, because there are such proposals? Will he bear in mind the proximity of hydro-electric power, the enormous growth of the tourist traffic and the amazing natural beauty of Scotland, and see that the railway is electrified at an early date?

Mr. Molson: I will slightly modify what I originally said, and now tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no proposal to electrify the railway between Aberdeen and Ballater.

Charges (Stabilisation)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what estimate was made by Her Majesty's Government of the additional loss likely to be incurred by the British Transport Commission as a result of stabilisation of railway charges until the end of 1956 made at the request of Her Majesty's Government; and how it is proposed by Her Majesty's Government that the Commission shall meet it.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The undertaking given by the Chairman of the Commission on 28th June was the result of its own decision and not of a Government request. The first part of the Question does not, therefore, arise. On the second part I can add nothing to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on 4th July.

Mr. Davies: But are not the Government acting quite irresponsibly in this matter? Is it not a fact that the Commission is accumulating a deficit at the rate of £45 million a year and that in about one year's time it will exceed £100 million? The Government cannot shelve responsibility for the difficult financial position of the Commission, which is largely due to the Government's own action.

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. The first thing I want to make plain is that the Opposition really must consider where they stand on this matter. Do they really want prices stabilised or do they not? If they do want prices stabilised they ought to congratulate the Commission on being one of the leading industries in the country to try to do it. As to the financial position of the Commission, which has not been materially altered one way or the other by the present proposals, the fact is that we are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, working very hard on an examination of the position in which the Commission finds itself. It certainly does not arise as a result of Government action.

Mr. Davies: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he does not agree with what I say when it is a fact that the Commission is accumulating this large deficit? He cannot deny that. The Government are responsible for this position, are they not, because they did

request the Commission to take the action in regard to refraining from raising freight charges? The Government set aside the Transport Commission's advice that it should be permitted to raise its charges. Is not it a fact that the Commission will have to put up its charges even more when the standstill comes to an end than would otherwise have been the case?

Mr. Watkinson: I think it puts the matter into proportion if I say that the Government are responsible to the extent of £8 million out of a deficit which the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying may reach £100 million by the end of the year.

Mr. G. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether satisfactory progress is being made with the railway modernisation scheme, and whether, in the long run, that will increase the earning capacity of the railways?

Mr. Watkinson: Very good progress is being made with the modernisation scheme. What we are doing during the six months is, among other things, to carry out a detailed assessment of its progress so that we can see clearly when it will pay off.

Private Enterprise Principles

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what are the particular principles of private enterprise not now in force which it is proposed to apply to the railways.

Mr. Watkinson: The most important principles of enlightened private enterprise are to give as good or better service than one's competitors; to provide such a service under fair and reasonable conditions at a fair and reasonable price. The purpose of the 1953 Act was to give the Commission freedom to develop these principles.

Mr. Strauss: Is not it really ridiculous to suggest that there are any principles of efficiency which apply particularly to private enterprise or to public enterprise? In view of the enormous strides made by the British Transport Commission in the greater efficiency of its railways, which have been revealed every year in its Annual Report, is not it slighting to the Commission and its staff to suggest that there are ideals or proposals which are peculiar to private enterprise which they have not thought of?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree with that, but I think that it is a perfectly fair point. There is a fundamental difference between the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and the Government. The difference is that they quite sincerely believe—and I do not question it for a moment—that the right way to run a nationalised industry is to run it on strictly nationalised principles which, the whole country accepts, have, on the whole, failed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Government's view is that the right way to run these nationally-owned industries is on the principles of enlightened private enterprise, with competition and the use of most up-to-date business methods. That is the clear difference between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has not British industry in the last hundred years built up a good code of managerial efficiency on which the nationalised industries might draw?

Mr. Strauss: Is not the Minister making a great mistake in trying to bring these political arguments into a technical problem of efficiency? Is not it a fact that the principle on which the nationalised industries—this and the others—run is the principle of giving the best possible service to the nation and to the people? In view of the extraordinary progress, the reduction of costs all round, and the extraordinarily cheap services for freight and passengers on the railways which the Commission gives, compared with the prices asked in almost every other industry, is not it ridiculous to suggest that we should introduce principles from some other system, from private enterprise, in order to teach this great national service what it ought to do?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that this is a matter that we can properly debate at Question Time. I would only answer by saying that if the right hon. Gentleman will study the 1953 Act, the statements made by the Government on the modernisation plan, and the 1956 Act—and he knows what they contain—he will see that they have radically changed the organisation of the Commission to its advantage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by making it into a more flexible and commercial undertaking.

Superannuation Schemes (Modifications)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the prospective reduction in superannuation contributions and payments to certain members of the London Transport and railways staff, what consultations he had on this matter with appropriate trade unions; and what representations have been made to him respecting alleged hardships likely to be suffered by those who joined the service before 1948.

Mr. Watkinson: The terms of the modifications of the superannuation schemes of London Transport and the railways, to take account of the National Insurance pension, were first discussed and agreed between the British Transport Commission—or the London Transport Executive—and all the trade unions and staff associations concerned. The draft of the modifying Regulations was sent by me to all these bodies and was agreed by them before I made the Regulations on 15th May last.
Two hon. Members have sent me letters from individual employees of London Transport complaining of certain of the terms. Replies have been sent to the hon. Members concerned, explaining these terms and pointing out that they had been agreed by the recognised representatives of the employees.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Combine Harvesters (Road Journeys)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will reconsider the regulation which requires 24 hours' notice to be given to the police before harvesters travel along public roads, in view of the fact that changeable weather renders this regulation impracticable.

Mr. Watkinson: Notice is at present required for the moving of a combine harvester only if it is over 8 ft. wide and the journey on roads exceeds five miles. I already have these and other requirements under review, and I am proposing to amend them so that notice is not required for harvesters up to 9½ ft. wide.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he can give an assurance that this amendment will come into operation before the coming harvest?

Mr. Watkinson: I will do my best.

Ports (Expenditure)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give details of the reduction of £105,000 in expenditure on ports included in the economy statement recently announced; and whether this affects the port of Goole.

Mr. Watkinson: This reduction is entirely on Civil Defence expenditure, and it would not be in the public interest to give details about a particular port.

Mr. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will do nothing to impede the development and efficiency of the port of Goole, which is the only port of the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly do that. This expenditure does not relate to the commercial efficiency of the port, but purely to Civil Defence.

Public Service Vehicles (Litter)

Captain Corfield: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which a woman has been killed as a result of a blow from a bottle thrown from a passing motor coach; and whether he will introduce regulations making it an offence to throw bottles and other refuse from the windows of vehicles, and making it obligatory for the proprietors of motor coach companies to provide inside the vehicles suitable litter bins together with notices warning the passengers of the consequences of throwing litter through the windows.

Mr. Molson: It is already an offence under the Regulations governing the conduct of passengers in public service vehicles to throw bottles or litter out of the vehicle. The provision of litter bins and warning notices is a matter best left to the discretion of operators.

Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that traffic at Hyde Park Corner often gets choked up in an immovable mass, he will experiment with a return to the former system by which traffic between Constitution Hill and Hyde Park would drive straight across the centre, by the road now unused, and be controlled by traffic lights or police.

Mr. Watkinson: Comprehensive proposals for improving the flow of traffic at Hyde Park Corner are under consideration. Meanwhile no purpose would be served by reverting, as my hon. Friend proposes, to a system which, after wide experience, was abandoned in 1926.

Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when that scheme was abandoned traffic was nothing like so congested as it is now? Would he not agree that it would be much better to have an orderly regulation of traffic going across the junction, stopped by traffic lights or police, and the other traffic similarly stopped, instead of the disorderly chaos that occurs at intervals now?

Mr. Watkinson: That does not seem to fit in with the figures, which seem to show that the roundabout is entirely successful. For example, the number of vehicles using the roundabout has gone up by 25 per cent. and the delay has been reduced by 30 per cent., comparing the figures for 1954 with the position in 1925. So, on the whole, we have got a measurable improvement, although I quite accept that it is not nearly good enough.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a census at Hyde Park Corner would show that about 80 per cent. of the vehicles between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning have only one person inside them? Would not a solution of the traffic problem of London be to forbid parking in the streets within five miles of Charing Cross?

Mr. Watkinson: I agree; I think the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of cars with only one person in them is possibly correct. They are the largest contribution to congestion in inner London. I would not go as far as the right hon.


Gentleman's suggestion of banning them all, but I agree that we have to restrict the parking of that kind of vehicle.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he can yet say what improvements are to be carried out to increase the flow of traffic at Marble Arch and at Hyde Park Corner.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has made to reduce traffic congestion at Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.

Mr. Watkinson: I attach great importance to getting the right comprehensive scheme for improving traffic conditions at Marble Arch, Hyde Park Corner and Park Lane. Detailed consideration is now being given to the related problems of amenity, traffic flow and the details of the roundabouts, but the study is not yet complete.

Captain Pilkington: How long has this consideration been going on? Is it not time that action was taken?

Mr. Watkinson: Quite frankly, it does not interest me how long consideration has been going on. I am only interested in how soon I can do the job, and that will be as soon as possible.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the length of time likely to elapse before anything is done may have some relationship to the length of time during which the matter has been considered by the Ministry without any action whatsoever?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are difficult problems, as I said in this House recently. There is the difficulty of whether we ought to knock down Decimus Burton's screen at the entrance to the park, or destroy the lodges on the fringe of Hyde Park, things about which a great many people feel very strongly. I do not think the time that has been taken, if it is considered to be long, has been entirely wasted.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The right hon. Gentleman has still not told us what he is going to do and when he is going to do it. Unless he does something about the creeping paralysis of traffic in London the right hon. Gentleman will be driven—

and this is probably the only driving he will do—to the banning of private cars from central London altogether.

Mr. Watkinson: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) will facilitate the final stages of the Road Traffic Bill when it returns to this House, because that is what I want.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Potter Street Diversion Scheme, Harlow

Mr. Finlay: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the increasing accident rate on the A11 trunk road in the Potter Street area, Harlow New Town, he will accelerate the completion date for the Potter Street diversion scheme announced in February, 1955.

Mr. Molson: We have no evidence that the accident rate in the Potter Street area is increasing, but I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done to expedite the start of this important scheme.

Mr. Finlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department itself supplied me with these statistics, showing a sharp increase in accidents of a personal nature, and will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Molson: I looked into it before I came into the House. On the length of road to be by-passed by the Potter Street diversion, the number of accidents in 1953 was 13, in 1954, 17, and in 1955 only five, which does not indicate that there has been an increase in the number of accidents.

Mr. Finlay: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why it will not be possible to obtain the land required for the purposes of the A11 trunk road diversion at Potter Street until the summer of 1957 having regard to the fact that practically all the said land is vested in one public owner, that is to say the Harlow Development Corporation who are ready and willing to facilitate this scheme.

Mr. Molson: Although the order establishing the line of the road for the Potter Street diversion was made last year and the scheme has been authorised this year, the necessary statutory procedure will take some months. The draft


order dealing with side roads was published on 6th July, 1956, but the period for objections does not expire until 6th October next. If there are no serious objections, the Order will be made in November. As some common land is required, there will have to be a compulsory purchase order which cannot be published in draft form until the side roads order has been made. If there are no serious objections, we hope that the compulsory purchase order will be made early next year.

Severn Bridge Project (Motorway)

Captain Corfield: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to state the area of land to be acquired for the construction of the new motorway for the Severn Bridge project, together with the number of properties and people affected; whether notification has yet been made to all those concerned; and at what date he anticipates that work will be commenced.

Mr. Watkinson: About 150 acres will be needed for the bridge and approach roads from Almondsbury to Haysgate. As I cannot yet say when this project will be started, it would be premature to prepare the detailed land plans, without which it is impossible to ascertain the number of properties and persons likely to be affected.

Captain Corfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Gloucestershire County Council has published some plans of this motorway, with the result that it is inevitably having considerable hardship effect on people who are disposing of their property in the area? Would he give consideration to the prevention of publication of such plans until he is in a position to give some idea of the date on which the work can be commenced?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite understand, and I sympathise with those people who feel that the value of their property is affected by one of these great bridge or road schemes, but I think I am right in saying that that particular publication was not within my control. I will see what I can do in future to ensure that plans are not published until we are ready to go ahead.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister say whether the purchase of the land will be on the basis of existing use value or speculative value?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Relief Road, Newbury

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now say when construction of the Newbury east—west relief road will begin; and how long the work is likely to take.

Mr. Watkinson: I hope soon to authorise the preparation of the engineering details, after which acquisition of the necessary land can be put in hand, but until considerable progress has been made with this work it is difficult for me to say when the consructional work will start or how long it is likely to take to complete it.

Mr. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a very short length of relief road running east and west through Newbury would greatly facilitate the flow of traffic, which is becoming progressively heavier each weekend, and that it would be of great benefit to many thousands of travellers?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, I entirely agree, but I know that my hon. Friend will agree, equally, that I really must not trample over the rights of people whose land we have to buy to make these roads.

Watling Street, Warwickshire (Speed Limit)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recommendations he has received from the Warwickshire County Council for improving the safety of any stretch of Watling Street, between Atherstone and Dordon; and what was his reply.

Mr. Molson: We have received a recommendation from the county council for the imposition of a speed limit on part of this length, and this is now under consideration.

Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when considering this matter, the enormous amount of housing and industrial development that has taken place on either side of that stretch of road?

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir.

Junctions, London Traffic Area

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many underpasses, overpasses, fly-overs and similar road junctions are planned to relieve traffic congestion in the greater London area; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of them, together with the estimated cost and the expected date of completion.

Mr. Watkinson: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of eight schemes of this type in the London Traffic Area which are included in the road programme for the four years from 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1959.

—
Estimated cost
Estimated date of completion




£



TRUNK ROADS:




1. Kingston By-pass:


Underpass at Hook Road
…
370,000
1958


2. Cromwell Road Extension:


Gunnersbury Fly-over
…
700,000
1959


3. Western Avenue:


Underpass at Hangar Lane
…
600,000
1959


4. St. Albans By-pass: 
Cost included in comprehensive by-pass scheme for which estimate is £5·5 million
1960


Fly-over at North Orbital Road
…


5. St. Albans By-pass:


Fly-over at London—Holyhead Road
…


6. Kingston By-pass:




Fly-over at Burlington Road
…
300,000
1961


CLASSIFIED ROADS:




7. Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel Southern Approach Road:




Underpass at London—Canterbury Road
…
250,000
1962


8. Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach Road:




Underpass at East India Dock Road
…
Cost included in comprehensive scheme estimated at £1·64 million
1962

Hubbards Hill, Atherstone

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has considered the communication sent to him by the hon. Member for Meriden with reference to an accident at Hubbards Hill, near Atherstone; and whether he will take steps to improve the safety of this stretch of road.

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. A widening of the carriageway would make conditions safer, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to authorise an improvement scheme.

Mr. Russell: Is it correct to assume that these are not the only plans which my right hon. Friend has in mind, and will he do his utmost to speed up the provision of junctions of this kind? Are they not the best way of relieving congestion?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend is quite right. The eight which I have announced, although they will cost about £3 million, are only the beginning of plans of this kind for fly-overs and underpasses, but they are the only firm proposals on which I am engaged at the moment.

Following is the list of schemes:

Mr. Moss: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that in this serious accident the question of speed was greatly concerned, that one car was travelling at 45 miles an hour, that an oncoming motorcycle was travelling at between 50 and 55 miles an hour and that that was followed by a car travelling at 60 miles an hour? Is not that an argument for imposing a speed limit on that stretch of road?

Mr. Molson: We are carrying out a careful analysis of all the acidents that have taken place recently on that length of road.

Roundabout and Fly-over, Hammersmith

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation by how long it is estimated completion of the Cromwell Road Extension would be delayed if a fly-over were constructed at Hammersmith in place of the projected roundabout.

Mr. Watkinson: I am advised by the London County Council that if the fly-over were included in the present scheme the provision of a through route would be delayed by two or three years. The hon. Member no doubt appreciates that there is no question of a fly-over being an alternative to the projected roundabout. The complete scheme provides for a fly-over and a surface roundabout.

Mr. Davies: Since the Minister stated last week that in his view this fly-over will ultimately be necessary, is it not shortsighted to take the view that it is not necessary at the present time? Surely it will cost more when it is constructed later on, and more dislocation of traffic is likely to occur when the volume of traffic is so much greater? Cannot a new decision be taken?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, but I have discussed this matter personally in great detail with the London County Council. The difficulties are that there is a great deal of property acquisition to be done before the fly-over can be built and that local opposition, which is very strong, is by no means overcome. I think I can best say that the scheme is going to be fitted for the fly-over, but not with it at the moment. I do not think that that will much increase the cost when it can be and is built.

High Road, Leytonstone

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the volume of traffic in High Road, Leytonstone, has increased during the past two and ten years, respectively; particularly, in view of the heavy morning incoming and evening outgoing traffic, what statistical information he has in respect of increase in passenger cars during those hours; what consideration has been given to serious congestion mounting during forthcoming years; and the long-term plans to deal with this.

Mr. Molson: I am sorry that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available. Traffic at a census point about a quarter of a mile south of the junction of Church Lane and High Road, Leytonstone, increased by about 32 per cent. between 1938 and 1954, and the number of private cars increased by about 21 per cent. The long-term plan to improve this important exit from London is the construction of the Eastern Avenue extension.

Mr. Sorensen: I am aware of that proposal. Is there any other proposal, in view of the fact that the whole of that area is rapidly becoming a bottleneck? If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could go down there in the morning I am sure he would be most alarmed at the prospect.

Mr. Molson: I told the hon. Gentleman recently that the survey for the new road is making good progress. I do not think that it will be possible to deal with the situation until we build the new road.

Cromwell Road Extension (Hammersmith Viaduct)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the earliest date on which the contract for the Hammersmith Viaduct on the Cromwell Road Extension could be let if preliminary negotiations were begun immediately; and how soon the ground level work between Gliddon Road and Hammersmith Bridge Road will be completed.

Mr. Watkinson: The London County Council tells me that it would probably be possible for it to let a contract for the viaduct by the middle of 1958. I hope the present ground level scheme between Gliddon Road and Hammersmith Bridge Road will be completed by the middle of 1958.

Doncaster

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how long it will take to complete the construction of the Doncaster A1 by-pass.

Mr. Watkinson: Between five and six years. The necessary statutory procedure and the acquisition of land will take two to three years and constructional work a further three years.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what schemes, other than the by-pass and the Don Bridge, are being considered for the purpose of dealing with the traffic congestion in and around Doncaster.

Mr. Watkinson: I have recently made a grant towards the cost of improving the junction of North Bridge Road (Route Al) and Trafford Street, and this scheme when completed, together with the new bus station now under construction over the River Cheswold and the proposed one-way traffic system in the High Street, should relieve congestion very considerably. I hope also to be able to authorise this year a small scheme in St. James Street.

Mr. Paling: Has the Minister ever looked into the possibility of creating a diversionary road where roads already exist some miles north of Doncaster? Is he aware that this traffic is getting worse every week? Is he aware that last Saturday there was a queue nearly a mile and a half long before 9 o'clock in the morning, and a few hours later it was at Woodlands, between four and five miles long? The R.A.C. patrol man said it was the worst he had ever seen. Will the Minister see if it is possible for at least the lighter kinds of cars to be diverted in order to give some relief?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly I will look into that suggestion very carefully. I think that Doncaster at the moment is getting its fair share of attention, but if there is anything we can do to hold the position in the next year or so we will do it.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this by-pass is not to be completed short of six years from now all the traffic will have come to a complete stop long before that time?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the right hon. Member can tell me how he would propose to purchase land other than through the normal statutory procedure.

Captain Waterhouse: Has my right hon. Friend had a survey made of the roads many miles north of Doncaster in order to see whether at comparatively small expense it would be possible to make a material improvement?

Mr. Watkinson: I flew over Doncaster a few days ago to look at the town. On the way to Newcastle I looked at it from the air. I think there is something in what hon. Members have said. I will look into it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the congestion in and around Doncaster is by far the worst in the whole of the British Isles? Will he and his Department do everything they can and use all the pressure they can to speed some solution of this problem, particularly in view of what must be a stupendous economic loss resulting from the hold up of traffic?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with the right hon. Member. Doncaster is a very bad town—[Laughte.]—I mean a bad town in the sense of traffic congestion. I will see what I can do to provide some temporary diversion.

Mr. Holmes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now during race week traffic is diverted and directed by Barmby Dun and Armthorpe? If that can be done at this time it could be done at other times.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does not the time taken to acquire land for these by-passes, normally two or three years, indicate that we should now try to find a new procedure for the acquisition of land?

Mr. Watkinson: I have recently looked at the procedure for acquiring land for these roads because I shall be acquiring a very great deal of land in the next few years. I am satisfied that if we are to give the owners the right to object we cannot shorten the procedure.

Mr. Stokes: Has it ever occurred to Her Majesty's Government to introduce a thoroughgoing tax on land values, which would remove the obstructionists?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Decca Navigator System

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in what way the radio position-finding device to be used in conjunction with land-based transmitting stations for purposes relating to the safety of life at sea can be used also for purposes relating to


safety of life in the air; and the approximate cost and the nature of the adaptations to aircraft which will be necessary for these purposes.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The hon. and learned Member is presumably referring to the Decca Navigator system. An aircraft, given the necessary equipment, can use this system in the same way as a ship. Not only can it calculate its position with a very high degree of accuracy, but by means of an automatic flight log it can maintain on a special chart a continuous plot of its path.
The aircraft equipment is available on hire from the Decca Navigator Company. The cost of hiring it varies with the type of installation and presentation, but a typical charge would be £750 per annum. Certain structural modifications to the aircraft are necessary to permit the installation of the equipment and its special aerial system. A typical installation charge would be about £170.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to the Decca Navigator System, and that there is a chain of transmitting stations all over Europe and in this country? Is not this a most valuable device, which should be encouraged by the Government?

Mr. Profumo: The Government are doing everything possible to encourage this system.

Airport Bars (Use by Staff)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that members of the airport staffs have been utilising the facilities in the bars at the airports which were originally intended to meet the needs of air passengers only; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what instructions he has given with regard to the staff at London Airport enjoying the 24-hour drinking facilities provided at the airport under the Licensing (Airports) Act; and to what extent members of the staff employed at the airport are permitted to patronise the bar after the conventional licensing hours.

Mr. Profumo: The bars referred to are in the Customs bonded area, access to which is confined to passengers and to such staff as have occasion to go there in the course of their duties. Under general staff regulations, Government officials are forbidden to drink on duty, and I understand that most of the operating companies have a similar rule. When the 24-hour facilities came into force, all operators and other airport tenants were, however, specifically requested by the Commandant to instruct their staffs that there is to be no consumption of liquor at these bars, save in the most exceptional circumstances, and so far as I am aware the instruction is being complied with.

Mr. Williams: If what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is correct, why has the Air Commandant recently expressed serious annoyance that these facilities had quite obviously been available to the staff there?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's contention. It was not the Air Commandant who expressed that view. There has been a newspaper report to that effect, but I repeat that after investigation we are satisfied that there has been no contravention of the Minister's regulations, and further steps have been taken to ensure that that situation should continue in the future.

Controlled Air Spaces (Flight Rules)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what difficulties now present themselves in the way of framing a scheme to prevent the collision of aircraft flying in controlled air spaces, which are fundamentally different from those which existed when the original scheme was formulated.

Mr. Profumo: The difficulties are not fundamentally different now from what they were when the existing scheme was formulated; but they have been intensified by increasing traffic and by the higher speeds and altitudes at which civil aircraft now fly. Against this certain improvements in the system can now be considered as a result of greater radar coverage.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Joint Under-Secretary assure us that he has full co-operation from the Air Ministry in this


matter and that the Air Ministry is not as sticky now as it was in 1949, when the original scheme was framed? While we await the complete scheme can he say how many near-accidents have been reported to his Department in the last six months by the captains of British civil liners?

Mr. Profumo: I am not aware that the Air Ministry has ever been sticky, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not sticky at the moment and is co-operating to the full. With regard to the second part of his Question, the Answer is that 58 incidents were reported in the six months ended 30th June. I should stress that the phrase "near-miss" is capable of misinterpretation. A pilot has to report any occurrence of an unusual nature which might have developed into a hazard. I think I would be right in saying that not more than two of these so-called "near-misses" required any violent action without which there might have been a collision.

Mr. Bellenger: Even two of these incidents may have caused serious loss of life. Are any arrangements in existence whereby the R.A.F. gives notice to the civil aircraft authorities if it is going to shoot right across the tracks of the civil aircraft?

Mr. Profumo: The answer to the second part of the question is "Yes, Sir." The Air Ministry and my Department are trying to make that system better. I quite appreciate that a near-miss, if it developed into anything worse, would cause loss of life. That is why my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Air have set up a Joint Committee of Inquiry which we hope will report in about a month's time.

Flight Regulations (Urban Areas)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the instructions or regulations now governing the flying of aircraft over urban areas; what record he has of the number of accidents caused to urban areas by aircraft during the last ten years; and what recent consideration has been given to this matter.

Mr. Watkinson: The regulations which specifically govern flights by civil aircraft over towns or populous areas are contained in the Air Navigation Order,

1954, Schedule II, Rules 15 and 19. There have been nine recorded cases in the United Kingdom since 1947 in which injury to persons or damage to structures was caused by civil aircraft in urban areas. The Regulations have recently been reviewed and I am considering whether as a result certain minor amendments should be made to them.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether, within his range of consideration, the matter of noise is also being considered, because that is particularly obnoxious in many areas?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, I am certainly considering it.

B.O.A.C. (Aircraft Requirements)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation which British aircraft have been considered for approval by him, together with the Boeing 707 and the DC8, for future use on the North Atlantic route by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Watkinson: The technical discussions which British Overseas Airways Corporation is undertaking with aircraft manufacturers in this country and in America are not yet completed and I cannot anticipate what proposals the Corporation will put forward.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that there appears a very serious contradiction between what he has said and what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said on this matter? Can the Minister say what responsibility he or the Corporation have for the specifications sent to the industry last January, whether there has been any response from the industry to those specifications, and if any such proposals are now being considered?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the specification issue is a matter which the hon. Member should pursue with my right hon. Friend. So far as B.O.A.C. is concerned, I have made the position quite plain to the House. The Chairman is now in America with an expert technical mission, looking at these aircraft. He and his colleagues are examining whatever project the British aircraft industry can offer. That is how the matter rests at the moment.

Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that the selection of future aircraft is in the hands of a committee of the Board of B.O.A.C., including one of its senior air pilots? In the meantime, whatever the future long-term policy may be, is it not essential that we should have aircraft which will keep B.O.A.C. flying, with traffic in British, hands throughout the world?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree. It is a very difficult task. All I can say is that I am quite satisfied that the Corporation now has a very much better set-up for trying to judge what for its commercial future it really needs in the way of aircraft. As my hon. Friend has said, it has added a pilot to its technical committee, and that is very wise. It is now really up to the Board to make up its own mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

National Service

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Defence (1) if Her Majesty's Government will now make arrangements to abolish National Service in 1957; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if Her Majesty's Government will now undertake to reduce the period of National Service in the autumn of this year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent proposals for reducing or ending National Service are mainly contingent on increasing the number of Regular Service men.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government for ending National Service.

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the improved international situation, whether the Government will reduce the length of National Service this year.

The Minister of Defence (Sir Walter Monckton): As I have previously explained to the House, the factors which determine whether any changes can be made in our National Service policy are the prospects of Regular recruitment and the level of the commitments which

the Services have to perform. I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Craddock: If I am not putting the Minister and the Government under too much strain, may I ask if it is not time that the House heard considered plans by which this matter could be resolved, to the benefit of the men and the economy of the country?

Sir W. Monckton: I have no complaint of the way in which the hon. Member was good enough to phrase his question. I think it would be premature to form a judgment about what ought to be done until we see more of the effects of the raising of pay which has taken place and began to take effect in April. We have only two months' recruiting figures at present, with the figures of prolongation.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not generally agreed in Government circles that it is going to take about a year to get a real appreciation of the effect of these proposals? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman observed the supposedly inspired articles in the Tory Press about the ending of National Service? Can he say whether they are really inspired or indicate that there is to be a continuing state of dither in the Government mind?

Sir W. Monckton: The right hon. Member can take it from me that at any rate I am not the source of that inspiration. On the facts of the matter I am hopeful that we shall be able to form a better judgment in a shorter period than the right hon. Member suggested in the first part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Allaun: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the parents and youth of this country have made up their minds that National Service must be entirely and quickly abolished, and that they will not be put off with selective call-up—which is unfair—or any sops of that kind? Is the opposition to abolition coming from within the chiefs of staff, the Government, or the Conservative Party?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not know how far the hon. Member is entitled to give the views of the whole population of young people and so forth. I would only say that that is not the view which has been expressed to me.

Mr. Drayson: While I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend is unable to make a statement about a reduction in National Service at the present time, may I ask whether he will undertake to look at the regulations regarding release of Service men to assist with hay making?

Sir W. Monckton: If my hon. Friend wants further information than has been given on that subject, he ought to put down a Question.

Mr. Stokes: Pursuing what I was saying earlier, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House, for its enlightenment, whether the Government have given any real consideration to a reassessment of the manpower necessary to supply effective Armed Forces, having regard to new weapons? That is what we are all waiting for, but we get nothing whatsoever out of the Government.

Sir W. Monckton: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman expects to get an answer to that point on a Question dealing with National Service, but I will do my best to get the facts and figures relating to recruitment and prolongation available before the debate.

Guided Missiles (Supply and Maintenance)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will investigate the arrangements made by the Service Departments for the supply and maintenance of guided missiles to prevent overlapping between the Services and waste of the limited skilled manpower in the Royal Air Force.

Sir W. Monckton: I keep in close touch with all these matters. I am not aware that there is any unnecessary overlapping between the Services or risk of waste of skilled manpower, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any particular points in mind and will let me know what they are, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the general proposition that, if there are components and missiles used commonly by the three Services, he will have common maintenance for servicing and not waste technicians in the three Services?

Sir W. Monckton: There is a distinction between the two. In the case of common services, we are doing, and are going to do, what we can to improve co-ordination. I do not think it follows as night does the day that the maintenance is not best done by the individual Services.

Forces, Germany

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will withdraw sufficient troops and installations in Germany to equate commitments of this country with the amount to be received in support costs from the West German Government.

Sir W. Monckton: The level of our forces in Germany is necessarily governed by other considerations, such as strategic needs and treaty commitments.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that the Government have nevertheless made a very bad bargain indeed over the agreement? Are we not in grave danger of breaking our backs economically while maintaining an illusion of strength in Germany? Is it not time we had an overall discussion with our Allies in N.A.T.O. about the whole basis of our forces in Germany?

Sir W. Monckton: As to our position in N.A.T.O., it is a matter for discussion between the various countries there represented as to what the shape and size of the forces ought to be. That consideration is continually taking place in S.H.A.P.E.

Auster A.O.P. Aircraft (Maintenance)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will investigate the arrangements made by the Royal Air Force and the Army for the maintenance of Auster A.O.P. aircraft to see whether tile maintenance could be carried out by the Army to avoid waste of the limited skilled manpower in the Royal Air Force.

Sir W. Monckton: I have no reason to think that the existing arrangements are wasteful of skilled manpower.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please look at the matter again? Is not the Auster the simplest of all aircraft? Do not many


people believe that the skilled men available in Army units using Austers could easily be used for first-line maintenance of the aircraft instead of there being R.A.F. units attached expressly for the purpose?

Sir W. Monckton: The conclusion reached hitherto has been that the Army could not service the Auster with fewer men or with less-skilled personnel than the R.A.F. use. I am not persuaded that there is any waste, but I will certainly look at the matter again.

Soviet Forces, Eastern Germany

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Defence how many Soviet troops he estimates have been withdrawn from East Germany since the decision of the Soviet Government to reduce its armed forces by 1,200,000 men.

Sir W. Monckton: Of the 1,200,000 men which the Soviet Government say that they intend to demobilise only 30,000 will come from the Soviet forces in East Germany. Of these, a few Army and Air Force units have been withdrawn in the last few weeks.

Mr. Stokes: Does this mean a really substantial withdrawal from Germany, or is it just the tail end which is being picked off? Is there any substantial reduction in the actual fighting strength of the Russian armed forces in Eastern Germany?

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. The figures which I have given demonstrate that it is only a small proportion of the Soviet strength which is involved in respect of Eastern Germany.

Recruitment and Strength

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information regarding Regular recruitment shown in paragraph 53 of the Statement on Defence, 1956, brought up to date by showing actual figures for 1955–56, and the estimated figures for 1956–57, revised to take into account the recruiting trends disclosed by the actual Regular enlistments in the period April—June, 1956.

Sir W. Monckton: Regular recruiting figures for 1955–56 were given in a

return placed in the Vote Office on 31st May. I will, with permission, reproduce them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Regular recruiting figures for April and May, 1956, which I have already given to the House in reply to Questions are insufficient data on which to base a revision of the estimated recruiting figures for 1956–57 given in the Statement on Defence, 1956.

The figures are as follows:


REGULAR RECRUITING, 1955–56


—
Estimate in paragraph 53 of the Statement on Defence 1956
Actual figures


Royal Navy
7,500
7,214


Army
34,000
34,732


Royal Air Force
21,000
20,079


TOTAL
62,500
62,025

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the estimated male Regular strengths of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force on 1st April, 1960, taking into account the internal and external recruiting trends, including prolongations and re-engagements, shown during the period April—June, 1956, and assuming no further call-ups under the National Service Act take place after 1st April, 1958.

Sir W. Monckton: It is too early yet to gauge the long-term effects of the new Pay Code on Regular recruiting. The assumption in the last part of the hon. Member's Question would add one further uncertain factor to the problem of making an estimate of male Regular strengths of the Forces nearly four years ahead, and I am afraid I cannot attempt such an estimate.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the male Regular strengths shown in paragraph 54 of the Statement on Defence, 1956, brought up to date by showing actual strengths on 1st April, 1956, and the revised estimate for 1st April, 1957, after taking into account the internal and external recruiting trends, including prolongations and re-engagements, shown during the period April—June, 1956.

Sir W. Monckton: The strength figures on 1st April, 1956, were made available to the House in a return placed in the Vote Office on 24th May, but for convenience I will, with permission, reproduce them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I hope to give to the House before the summer Recess complete figures of Regular recruiting, prolongation and extension of service for the months April to June, 1956. Even when we have these figures, I do not consider that they will provide an adequate basis for a revision of the Estimates given in the Statement on Defence 1956 of Regular strength on 1st April, 1957.

The figures are as follows:


MALE REGULAR STRENGTHS ON 1ST APRIL, 1956


—
Estimate in paragraph 54 of the Statement on Defence, 1956
Actual strength


Royal Navy
106,500
106,604


Army
196,400
198,861


Royal Air Force
162,600
161,732


TOTAL
465,500
467,197

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Establishment, Dounreay

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal to make a statement on the present and future development of the nuclear power station at Dounreay, with particular regard to its relation to power for domestic and industrial purposes in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I have been asked to reply. Dounreay is primarily a research and development establishment. An experimental model of a fast breeder reactor capable of producing power is under construction and electricity generating equipment with a capacity of 15,000 kilowatts is being installed. Owing to the experimental nature of the project, however, it is not yet possible to forecast when, or on what scale, it may provide a continuous supply of electricity.

Mr. Hughes: Does that answer mean that this station will ultimately be used for the much-needed industrial development of the North of Scotland?

Major Lloyd-George: As I pointed out in my Answer, this is an experimental station. As was said in reply to a Question two or three days ago, the provision of stations in Scotland is being considered.

Strontium 90 (Deposit)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the deposit, in milli-curies per square mile, of the isotope strontium 90 before the first major thermo-nuclear tests were started two years ago; the deposit now; and what he estimates the deposit will be in 1964.

Major Lloyd-George: I have been asked to reply. The deposit of strontium 90 before the first major thermo-nuclear test was 2 milli-curies per square mile. The present deposit is 14 milli-curies per square mile. It is expected that thermo-nuclear tests carried out up to June, 1956, will increase the total deposit to 45 milli-curies per square mile by about 1965.

Mr. Mikardo: First, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend my regret, which I am sure is shared by the House, that he is kept from us by indisposition. Do not the figures given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate that there is a very rapid acceleration in the deposit of strontium 90, dangerous to both men and animals, as a result of nuclear tests? Does that not mean that Her Majesty's Government ought at once to seek the banning of tests?

Major Lloyd-George: All I can say at the moment is that, while the figures are increasing, there is as yet no cause for alarm. In answer to a Question on 19th June, it was clearly indicated that Her Majesty's Government have already put forward proposals which will, I hope, be discussed at the next Disarmament Commission meeting.

Mr. Snow: For the benefit of those who do not understand all these technicalities—I believe this question to be a very serious one—is the material mentioned in the Question of an indestructible nature?

Major Lloyd-George: I am afraid that I share the hon. Gentleman's ignorance about these matters. I think that it diminishes in strength. I always understood in the old days that nothing is indestructible.

Plant, Windscale and Capenhurst

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the nuclear plant at Sellafield to come into operation for the production of enriched uranium.

Major Lloyd-George: I have been asked to reply.
If my hon. Friend has in mind the plant at Windscale, near Sellafield, for converting enriched uranium hexafluoride to enriched uranium metal, this is already in operation.
Enrichment of uranium is carried out at the diffusion plant at Capenhurst, a number of sections of which are in operation, the material for the purpose of this process being in the form of uranium hexafluoride.

Sir J. Hutchison: I am obliged to my right hon. and gallant Friend for having taken over the Question from his right hon. Friend. I was trying to find out whether enough enriched uranium is available for all this country's requirements. Can my right hon. and gallant Friend tell me whether there is now enough enriched uranium available from one or other of these plants?

Major Lloyd-George: I must have notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Hotel Proprietors (Liabilities and Rights) Bill (changed to Hotel Proprietors Bill) and on the Sanitary Inspectors (Change of Designation) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT HOUSES OCCUPIED BY OWNERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 17, leave out "security of the House" and insert:
terms of the mortgage or charge;

3.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment, and the one that follows, are for the purpose of clarification and greater certainty. On the wording of the Bill as it stands, it seemed possible that a court, in considering an application from a mortgagor, might be restricted to looking at the security given by the house to the mortgagee, with the result that in the case of a friendly advance between two persons the mortgagee might be disadvantaged. The effect of this and the next following Amendment is to enable the court to take all the circumstances of the bargain into consideration.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In this respect another place seems to have been quite reasonable.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 3, line 33, leave out "the House" and insert:
in all the circumstances of the case the terms of the mortgage or charge".—[Mr. Powell.]

Clause 4.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 3, leave out from "been" to "given" in line 4, and insert:
vacated and demolished in pursuance of an undertaking for its demolition".

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and that in line 5 involve questions of Privilege. If the House agrees to the Amendments I will cause Special Entries to be made in the Journal.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is slightly more, but only slightly more, than a drafting Amendment. In page 6, line 5, of the Clause as it stands there is a reference to the date of demolition. Demolition, however, is a continuing process, and it is, therefore, desirable that so vague an expression should not remain in the Bill. In the similar circumstances, in page 2, line 14, the reference is to the start of demolition. Their Lordships have removed this blemish by an indirect but elegant device.

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 6, line 5, leave out "at the date of its demolition".—[Mr. Powell.]

TRANSPORT (DISPOSAL OF ROAD HAULAGE PROPERTY) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Consideration of the Lords Amendment in the Title, line 6, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Amendments.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Clause 2.—(DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY THROUGH COMPANIES THE SECURITIES OF WHICH ARE SOLD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 15, at end insert:
(4) As respects any vehicles which, immediately before the expiration of the five year period mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to the Transport Act, 1953, are—

(a) owned by a company to which vehicles have been transferred under the said section five; and
(b) authorised to be used under a licence granted to the Commission under the said Part II,
the said licence shall be deemed to have been granted for a period expiring with the end of the said five year period or with the date when the company ceases to be under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, whichever last occurs:
Provided that if, after the expiration of the said five year period and before the company ceases to be under the direct or indirect control of the Commission, any of the vehicles authorised to be used under the licence are disposed of by the company to the Commission, the licence shall thereupon cease to have effect with respect to those vehicles.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is intended to maintain the value of the companies which the Commission might have to sell at some period. The reason is that the special A licences for the vehicles owned by the company, granted under Part II of the First Schedule to the 1953 Act, will expire in 1958; that is to say, five years after the applications were made to the Commission. The purpose of the Amendment is to hold that position so that at a time when the British Transport Commission sold or proposed to sell either the parcels or the meat company it would be able to sell it with the value attached to a special A licence—a licence which otherwise, under the 1953 Act, would have lapsed.
Without the Amendment, the Commission or the company would in 1958, when the special A licences expired, have to apply for ordinary 1933 Act A licences. That application would have to be published, other operators could, of course, object, and if they did the licensing authorities would have to hold a normal sitting to determine the applications. If the Commission obtained a 1933 licence and the company was later sold then, of course, the purchaser would not have an automatic right to the licence, as he has under present arrangements, but would have to make his own application all over again to the licensing authority.
Therefore, the purpose of the Amendment is to continue the right to a special A licence on the part of vehicles of the parcels or meat company, and so protect their position until such time as it is finally decided whether or not the Commission disposes of them.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We have had a technical explanation of this rather

New Clause A.—(EXTRA VEHICLES FOR COMPANIES TO WHICH S. 3 APPLIES.)

5
.—(1) In addition to any vehicles made over to a company under the last preceding section, the Commission may, not-withstanding anything in subsection (5) of section six of the Transport Act, 1953, make over to that company such further vehicles as they may determine, so, however, that the total number of vehicles made over to companies under this section shall not exceed such number as may be agreed between the Board and the Commission or in default of agreement determined by the Minister.


10


15
(2) Where any vehicles are made over to a company under this section, any A licence under which they were authorised to he used before they are so made over shall cease to have effect so far as it relates to them, and the Commission shall give all such notices and make all such applications as are necessary to secure that the licences are revoked or that the vehicles are removed therefrom, as the case may require.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you propose to call the Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out from "determine" to the end of subsection (2), and the Amendment following, in line 7?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the two Amendments were really alternative, and that probably hon. Members of the Opposition would prefer me to call the second one. But there is no harm in discussing the first one with it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: That would be suitable to us, Mr. Speaker.

difficult Clause. That explanation appears to me to be satisfactory, as it seems that the Amendment is intended to remove what is perhaps a flaw which previously existed in the machinery. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will certainly not oppose this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PARTICULAR CONTRACTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 24, after "section" insert:
or under the next following section".

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, arising from the addition of the new Clause A which will fall to be discussed in a moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 28, at end insert:

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from "exceed" to the end of subsection (1) and to insert:
the difference between the number of vehicles to which subsection (1) of the last preceding section applies and the number of vehicles disposed of before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, under subsection (2) of the said section".

As you said, Mr. Speaker, the two Amendments are alternatives. The first would amend the Clause in such a way that it would be left to the Commission itself to determine how many vehicles it wishes to retain in reserve in connection with contract vehicles.

The Lords Amendment would, as I understand, mean that the Commission would be directed to retain a small float—a small reserve—of vehicles in its contract vehicle fleet. At present, it has a very large number of contracts with well-known firms such as Lyons, Cadbury's, and the like. It is obvious that some of those contract vehicles are often undergoing repair and maintenance, and it is necessary to call on other vehicles to do their work.

This matter was raised during the Committee stage, and from the Opposition benches it was very strongly pressed that the Commission was being put in a very difficult position inasmuch as it would have no reserve of vehicles to draw upon. Therefore, in another place, this proposed new Clause was moved by the Government, which seeks to permit the Commission to retain these additional vehicles, but the number has to be agreed by the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Commission, or, in default of such agreement, by the Minister.

We do not consider it necessary that this decision should have to be reached by the Board in consultation with the Commission. Surely it is the Commission's responsibility to decide how many vehicles it requires to keep in reserve. As the Clause now reads, the Commission will not have licences for these reserve vehicles, but will use the licences which are attached to other vehicles when the reserve vehicles are required to be used.

Clearly, the total fleet in operation will never exceed the total number of vehicles for which contracts have been entered into. Our first Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, in line 5, which we would very much like to be accepted but which, I fear, will not appeal to the Government, would enable the Commission to retain as many vehicles in reserve as it considers necessary, purely for the purpose of fulfilling its contract operations. The purpose of our second Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 7, is to ensure that the Commission shall be able to retain all those contract vehicles which are not disposed of by the end of the current year.

During our debates, it became quite clear that the Commission would have to dispose of any contract vehicles where it

had failed to obtain a renewal of its contracts. If one of the well-known firms to which I have referred were to decide not to renew its contract with the Commission, those vehicles which had previously been used by the Commission for carrying out that contract would have to be disposed of. It could easily happen that the Commission would enter into another contract with a different firm, but under the terms of the Bill it would not be possible for the Commission to transfer its vehicles from the contract which had expired and had not been renewed, and use them for another contract which it had entered into. It would have to dispose of the vehicles which it had been using, and purchase new vehicles to carry out another contract.

The Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill as it first came to the House provided that the Commission, in any circumstances where it had not succeeded in renewing a contract, could not use those vehicles for any other purpose but would have to dispose of them even if the Commission required to enter into fresh contracts. That seemed to us a most ridiculous provision, and in the course of passing through its various stages the Bill has been amended to some extent.

Even so, the Bill still provides that the Commission cannot retain contract vehicles which have been used to fulfil a certain contract if the contract is not renewed, but must dispose of them. That appears to us to be a ridiculous provision. The Commission has at its disposal good vehicles which it is using in competition with others in contract work. It makes tenders to obtain contracts in fair competition and on an equal basis with private enterprise. To its credit it has succeeded in obtaining a large number of contracts in fair competition with the private hauliers, and many of its contracts have been renewed.

3.45 p.m.

In the course of business, contracts vary and customers change, and the Commission loses some of its contracts, but at present, when contracts are lost, perfectly good vehicles have to be disposed of and new vehicles have to be purchased in order to carry on any new contracts. There cannot be any justification for that.


It is a ridiculous performance, particularly at this time when the Commission has imposed upon it a severe capital restriction. The Commission is not allowed to spend more than a certain amount on new vehicles in the course of a year. It has agreed with the Minister how much can be used for new vehicles during the current year, and it is quite clear that it is thereby restricted in the number of new vehicles which it may purchase.

I therefore suggest that this proposed new Clause is not adequate for the purpose which we had in mind when the Minister gave an undertaking in Committee to look into this matter. He has gone a certain way to meet the views expressed from this side of the House, but, in our view, he has not gone far enough. I suggest that as a very minimum the right hon. Gentleman should accept our second Amendment which would mean, in effect, that at the end of this year any contract vehicles which stood in the possession of the Commission when contracts had not been renewed, would automatically remain the property of the Commission and could then be used by the Commission for whatever purpose it required in connection with its contract work.

Those contract vehicles would clearly be confined to contract work, but they would be available for fresh contracts, for substitution of vehicles where existing contracts were in operation, and the Commission would then be in the same position as any other private haulier. It would not hamstring or restrict, as would be the case as the Clause stands at present.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in his arguments on our first Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in line 5. It seems to me to be unfortunate that the Minister does not agree that the Transport Commission should decide for itself the number of vehicles which it ought to retain. The attitude of the Minister will react unfavourably against the development of the Transport Commission's services.
The second Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment, in line 7, has even greater force and certainly ought to be accepted. In these days, when the Transport Commission is being severely

restricted financially in accordance with general Government policy, it is indefensible that the Commission should have to purchase new vehicles in order to carry out a new contract when, if the Minister had agreed, the Commission could have had a reserve of vehicles available for new contracts.
It is abominable that in an Act of Parliament the Commission should be compelled to dispose of vehicles which are temporarily out of service. We should leave the Commission to decide in its wisdom whether or not any vehicles which are surplus to immediate requirements should be disposed of. It seems to me to be tying down the Transport Commission in a most unhelpful way, and impeding its functions in fulfilling its very important responsibilities in the road transport system.
There ought to be some flexibility. There is an overwhelming case for saying that the Commission should retain what vehicles it requires, provided they are not licensed, and should be able to retain them so that it can either use them for spare parts and renewals to other vehicles or as a reserve to meet the emergencies which always arise in transport, the emergency of having an unusual amount of breakdowns in the fleet, for instance, when it would be necessary to transfer some of the licences in order to carry out contract responsibilities.
I do not think that the Minister will deny for one moment that the Transport Commission, with its vast fleet of vehicles, is a vital factor in our road transport system. To cramp its flexibility of operation in the way proposed by the Lords Amendment would be to do something which, to my mind, would be against the best interests of the industry.
If the position were reversed, and the Transport Commission were in the position of the Road Haulage Association, I question very much whether the Conservative Party would tolerate for one moment this interference with the freedom of the industry. We hear a lot from the Government about the utmost freedom being given to individuals and to industry. Here is a case where, not in the interests of national transport but in the interests of a small section of road hauliers, we are imposing restrictions and limitations which may do a great disservice to the industries of our country.
After all the appeals which have been made for greater productivity and for greater effort in order to extricate ourselves from the economic difficulties with which we are confronted, the proposal contained in this Lords Amendment does not seem to fit into the picture at all. It does not seem to ring true. It is no good the Government or the Prime Minister talking about the nation being in mortal peril or about the new "Battle of Britain" having to be won this time by the many and not by the few, if, on the other hand, we make it impossible, or try to make it less possible, shall I say, through this stupid Amendment, for the Transport Commission to carry out its responsibilities to the nation.
In conclusion, may I say that the transport unions are watching these things very carefully. We are watching them because we are anxious—just as anxious as the Government—that road transport shall continue to prosper, and that our transport undertakings shall play their part in the recovery of our industrial prosperity. We of the transport unions look upon this Amendment and the principle behind it as a retrograde step, not conducive to the best interests of the country. I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Minister will say he will try to end this nonsense and accept the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment which was so well moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East.

Mr. James Harrison: I should like to say a word or two in support of our Amendment. The Transport Commission is being very severely pressed financially at present, and looks like being in that position for some years to come. The Amendment which we propose will make for economy in the operation of this valuable service to small-scale private traders. I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at what we suggest. Our Amendment does take the matter considerably further than does the Lord's Amendment, and will provide for a very necessary economy in the overall structure of the Transport Commission.
I should like to draw attention to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). He said that these vehicles will remain the property of the Transport Commission. That ought to be qualified,

I think, in this way. If this Amendment is carried, the vehicles will automatically remain the property of the Commission, but, should the Commission decide to dispose of that property, it is perfectly at liberty to do so. We are thus appealing for greater freedom for the Commission in this particularly trying time.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I should, as briefly as I can, explain the facts behind the Amendment which was moved in another place, because it does represent the honouring of a pledge which I gave this House, and it is a considerable concession to the British Transport Commission.
The background is this. Originally, under the 1953 Act, the Commission was given no latitude at all as to the action it took with these contract hire vehicles; it had to dispose of them. By this Bill, a considerable change is made, it being decided by this House that contract hire vehicles could be retained, provided the contract—I want to be fair and say, providing the contract for which they were originally hired—was maintained and retained by the Commission.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, it was put by several hon. Members opposite, I think, that the Commission had been accustomed to having a float of about 100 vehicles which it used, quite properly, as replacements for contract hire vehicles when they were under repair, and so forth. The present proposal in the Lords Amendment—and we ought to be quite clear about this, first, because it is an important concession—is that a figure shall be agreed between the Commission and the Disposal Board, or, failing agreement there, it shall come to me, as to the number of vehicles which the Commission may retain as a necessary float to manage its contract hire fleet.
While it is not for me to decide the number, I do not think that it would be unreasonable to assume that the number will be about 60 vehicles, as compared with the 100 vehicles which the Commission had originally. I do, therefore, say that this is quite a considerable concession.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Could the Minister explain why the number should be 60, when it has been 100? Why the reduction?

Mr. Watkinson: The reduction comes about because the actual fleet of contract hire vehicles has been reduced, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have the figures here, if he wishes me to give them. It was originally about 1,800 vehicles. That is the peak of the contract hire fleet; at its greatest, it was 1,800. It has been reduced to about 1,300, and that came about really under the 1953 Act, because that was the beginning of the disposal of the contract hire fleet, which was then stopped by this Bill. There is now a contract hire fleet of 1,300, and I am advised that the Commission might retain of that 1,300 about two-thirds. In other words, it might retain about two-thirds of the contracts and would therefore retain about two-thirds of the vehicles.
4.0 p.m.
Therefore, putting it all on the same basis, it seems to me not illogical to assume, although I cannot commit the Disposal Board as to this, that the size of the float that will be agreed will be in the nature of about 60 vehicles.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can we get the numbers correct? I have with me the fifth Report of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, in which the figure of contract hire vehicles for which the Minister's consent has already been given to a special rate under the 1953 Act is 1,982. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 1,800, and it would appear that there has been a greater reduction than he has stated.

Mr. Watkinson: I will have the figures checked. I was advised that the figure was 1,800 but, on the other hand, I am sure that that Report was not wrong. If the figure is in excess 1,900 or more, the important point for the House to consider is the size of float that is likely to be left for the contract hire fleet. I am advised that the figure which might be agreed would be about 60 vehicles, which, I think, is not an unreasonable number.

Mr. Harrison: What is the value of intruding into the business of the Transport Commission to that extent for so few vehicles?

Mr. Watkinson: I was coming to that.
On the wider issue, first there are one or two other facts which should be considered. It is said that it will be a great burden and illogical upon the Commission to have to sell these lorries if it does not regain the contracts. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who is an expert on this matter, knows, however, that in most cases a new vehicle goes with a new contract. In most cases, a trader says that he must have a new vehicle to start a contract hire arrangement. Therefore, in the normal course of business, it often happens that a lorry or box vehicle is sold at the end of a contract because the new contract demands a new vehicle. Indeed, a contract itself is often for the useful life of a vehicle. I do not know, therefore, that there is a great deal in that point from a practical point of view.

Mr. McLeavy: While, in some cases, a new contract might insist upon new vehicles, it may well be that in negotiations between the Transport Commission and a new contract hirer it is pointed out that, because of the economic position and the financial restrictions imposed by the Treasury, it would be in the interests of the country that a new vehicle should not be bought. If vehicles are not licensed except for a new contract, why should we not leave to the Commission the decision whether it should use the old vehicles by agreement with the new contractor or should buy new vehicles?

Mr. Watkinson: That is the other side of the point. One takes either one view or the other. My view is that we must leave on the Commission the responsibility for selling these vehicles if it does not renew the contract. I am only saying that that is to some extent reinforced by normal commercial practice.
The main point which is before the House is whether the Government and whether I have implemented the pledge which I gave. I think I can fairly say that I have implemented it, because the float of vehicles which will be agreed will be a reasonable float in relation to the size of the contract hire fleet which the Commission will retain. Therefore, in those circumstances, I have no option but to advise the House to reject the Amendments and the one that goes with it.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister has not in the slightest degree met the point which we now have in mind and which we are trying to press upon the Government. He has, it is true, met the point which was raised in Committee about the need for a float. We consider that it is wrong for him to try to restrict this and to dictate to the Commission what the size of the float should be. He shows the usual mistrust of the business intelligence and wisdom of the Commission in telling it what float it should have, as if the Commission is not capable of deciding itself what will be economic. Why should it want a bigger float than is necessary?
On the other point which we raised in Committee, and which I must now press further, the Minister has not met us at all. The Bill as it stands creates a quite ridiculous situation which nobody can possibly justify. The right hon. Gentleman in his earlier statement today said he wanted to apply to the Commission the principles of enlightened private enterprise. I invite the House to consider the principles which the Minister is now insisting that the Commission shall adopt.
The contract for contract vehicles may be for a year, two years or some other period. There are contracts with the various big firms—Lyons, Cadbury's, A.B.C. and all kinds of others—who use these vehicles for their purposes, but the Commission runs the vehicles for them. These are the contract vehicles. Many of the contracts will fall in between now and the end of the year. That is the point with which we are dealing. I do not know the exact number—it may be some hundreds—but the contracts will come to an end.
It may well be that some of the contracts will be renewed and some firms may want to make other arrangements or run their own vehicles. Other firms may say, "We should like to enter into a contract with you for doing the same sort of work, with the same kind of vehicles, and using the vehicles which you now have on your hands as a result of the other firm not renewing its contract." According to the principles, not only of enlightened private enterprise but of common sense, the Commission should

be able to say, "Very well. These vehicles which we are no longer using for, say, Lyons, we will now use for Cadbury's. All that is necessary is to paint the vehicles a different colour and to put on the name of Cadbury instead of Lyons." I take these names at random. That would be the economic and wise thing to do.
The Government, however, are insisting that if Lyons say that they do not want these contract vehicles any longer, they must sell the vehicles, although the manager who organises this side of the work may have on his desk an application from Cadbury's for exactly the same number of vehicles under a new contract. The Minister's intention is that the old vehicles which Lyons had been using must be sold and new ones bought for Cadbury's. That is the situation as we understand it, and we have very carefully studied the Bill and the new Clauses which have been passed in the Lords. That is why we have introduced our Amendments.
If we have misinterpreted the position, as is quite possible, the Minister will no doubt tell us, but we suggest that the present situation and the present proposal put before the House by the Government are wholly indefensible, wholly uneconomic, contrary to the principles of all business, whether private or public, and should be rejected by the House.
It is for that reason that we strongly urge that our Amendments to the proposed Lords Amendment should be accepted and that the House should reject this bit of ridiculous nonsense which stems from the distrust by the Government—I am not sure whether by the Minister or by his back bench supporters—of giving the Commission freedom to do anything at all, and their desire to restrict and hamper it in every way. This proposal by the Government should be replaced by the common-sense suggestion incorporated in our Amendments that the Commission should be allowed to use the vehicles which become surplus because one contract comes to an end for a new contract when the new contractor wants similar or identical vehicles. I hope, therefore, that the House will support our Amendments.

Mr. David Jones: I am wondering whether we can describe


the conduct of the Minister as that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I am not quite sure whether he is now behaving as Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. Earlier today he talked about having amicable consultations with the British Transport Commission, and some of his hon. Friends suggested that in the not distant future it might be possible for the Commission, bringing into the account all of its undertakings together, to break even. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the co-operation of the other sections of the Commission's undertakings when he adopts this attitude to one of them?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has just pointed out that these contracts are for varying periods and that they fall out at various times of the year. They are for varying sizes and varying numbers of vehicles. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said a moment or two ago that, irrespective of the circumstances prevailing and regardless of whether or not, when a contract ended, there was another firm prepared to enter into a contract for the use of the vehicles, the vehicles no longer required for the previous contract had to be sold as chattels in the secondhand market.
The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that the kind of business to which these contracts relate has been increasing during recent years. More and more firms are realising that the handling of vehicles, the servicing of vehicles, is a specialised job which they have considerable difficulty in finding space and manpower to do themselves. They find added advantage in having their vehicles put in first-class condition on the roads first thing in the morning, having been already serviced by somebody else. They can anticipate, in consequence of such contractual arrangements, that the vehicles will be ready to provide them with the services they require day by day.
There are contracts for as short a period as two years, and a contracted vehicle may have been new when the contract was started. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that if a contract falls out at the end of two years, although the contract vehicle is only two years old, and regardless of whether or not there is another firm willing to take up the contract, the vehicle has to be sold in the second-hand market. As my right hon.

Friend pointed out, all that is required to make the vehicle ready for a new contract is to paint out the name of one firm and to paint in the name of the newly contracting party. Yet the Commission is to be obliged to put the vehicle on the market for sale at the best price it can get.
It is a second-hand vehicle, anyhow, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that the bottom is falling out of the second-hand market. Yet the Commission is to be compelled to sell as chattels in the second-hand market vehicles which it could put to good use for another six or eight years under new contracts. It is to sell them regardless of their value and for any price it can get. Somebody has to make up that difference to the Commission, perhaps by the continuation of the levy for a longer period. Somebody will get a bargain, a good article cheaply.
That is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, and yet he has probably to meet the railway people, and to plead with the leaders of the three railway trade unions to ask their members to give of their best to make the railway part of the Commission's undertakings a success. They will read in the newspapers that the Commission has been forced to sell vehicles on the market at half their value. Is this the kind of thing the Minister has in mind when he talks of the best principles of private enterprise? This kind of thing will not do.
The right hon. Gentleman refused earlier today to tell us what the anticipated deficit will be at the end of the year. I will tell him. It will be nearer £120 million than £115 million. We know for certain that it was £70 million at the end of last year, and all the people best qualified to do so who have examined the accounts expect that it will be another £45 million by 31st December. That makes at least £115 million.
4.15 p.m.
Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect by this sort of behaviour to get the best out of the people engaged in this industry, whether on the roads or on the rails, in the docks, or in coastwise shipping? What is the use of the Prime Minister making his appeals at week-ends when other Ministers do this kind of thing merely to satisfy the back benchers on their side of the House? Why does not


the Minister stand up to his back benchers and tell them that this undertaking has to pay its way? I propose, with my right hon. Friend's approval, to go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment.

Mr. Norman Cole: There are three things that can be said in answer to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). I shall state them briefly, First, this is not such a major matter as he and hon. Members opposite wish to make it out to be. We all know that there are many new contracts which demand new vehicles, and not only new vehicles, but vehicles of special types. For those contracts second-hand vehicles used for other contracts are not suitable by age, type or design.
Secondly, as I listened most carefully, as I always do, to the right hon. Gentleman I was forced to the opinion that he was—and I think he knew he was—over-simplifying the matter. The firms about which he talked do not simply go to one contractor. They seek competitive tenders from several enterprises, private and nationalised. The right hon. Gentleman was naive in drawing that simple picture of a contract lying on the desk of somebody in the British Transport Commission, waiting only for a signature, or a quotation and a signature. It did not deceive any of us. What firms do is this. They seek from private enterprise and the Commission competitive tenders, and they accept what they regard as the best tenders for the carriage of their goods.
Thirdly—and I will be blunt about this—we want private enterprise to have an equal crack of the whip with the Commission, and we want the Commission to have an equal crack of the whip with private enterprise.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Would the hon. Gentleman then suggest that if a private enterprise firm has a contract by which it carries someone else's goods, and the contract comes to an end, the firm should be obliged to put its vehicles on the market to sell, and that it should be impossible for that company to contract for their use by some other company?

Mr. Cole: There are two complete answers to that. The first is that for

many contracts different types of vehicles are needed. The second is the argument which I have put many times in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, that the British Transport Commission vis-à-vis a private enterprise firm is a giant, a giant in comparison with the much smaller enterprise, so that the comparison is not valid. A private enterprise man may have to buy new vehicles. What we are aiming at is putting the Commission on a private enterprise efficiency basis, and keeping private enterprise on a competitively efficient basis.
Finally, I come to something to which hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very careful not to refer. They wrap a blanket of silence around it, and yet it is most important in the consideration of this matter. If the Amendment made in another place were not in the Bill, what would happen in the general pool of the Transport Commission to vehicles released from a contract which came to an end and not allocated to a new contract? That is what we on this side of the House should like to know.

Mr. McLeavy: rose—

Mr. Cole: I do not think that many hon. Members could tell me that authoritatively.

Mr. McLeavy: I am very sorry that the hon. Member should make that statement, because in the course of my speech I made the very point to the Minister himself. I will repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Member, who apparently was not listening when I was speaking. I suggested to the Minister that these vehicles would not be licensed in any case, because they would be surplus to requirements. The Commission would be allowed to retain them in case of exceptional breakdowns in the system of service and possibly to use them as spare parts for the repair of other vehicles, which would be cheaper than sending them to auction. That is the answer, and I am sorry the hon. Member was not listening.

Mr. Cole: It was not a question of not listening. I did not happen to be in the Chamber at that moment, but the hon. Member has still not disposed of the question whether these vehicles might be used in an emergency in the general pool of the Transport Commission. Secondly,


does the hon. Member really think that it is an indication of business efficiency to keep what, according to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), will presumably be a large number of vehicles immobilised, up against the wall, unlicensed, with all that that means in immobilised capital, and their only destiny to be cannibalised for the repair of other vehicles?

Mr. McLeavy: It is sound business practice to allow the undertaking to decide for itself and not to impose a decision upon it.

Mr. Cole: There would be a large number of vehicles which are not to be used by the Commission, not to be licensed, only to be used in emergency in the event of a breakdown and otherwise kept against the wall for no useful purpose and the keeping of tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds

of capital locked up for no purpose. We should enable the Commission to run its affairs on a private efficiency basis. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment and will reject the Amendment moved by the Opposition.

Mr. Watkinson: The first Opposition Amendment is clearly a wrecking Amendment because it destroys the whole purpose of the Lords Amendment and, indeed, of the Clause. The second Opposition Amendment would allow the Commission to retain another 500 vehicles, which, again, is outside the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, despite this very interesting debate, I must continue to advise the House to reject the Opposition Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 165.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[4.24 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Alport, C. J. M.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Armstrong, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Ashton, H.
Drayson, G. B.
Holt, A. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Atkins, H. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Baldwin, A. E.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, John (Test)


Barber, Anthony
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Barter, John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fell, A.
Hyde, Montgomery


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Bidgood, J. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bishop, F. P.
Fort, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braine, B. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Freeth, D. K.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gammans, Sir David
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Keegan, D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Burden, F. F. A.
Godber, J. B.
Kerr, H. W.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Kirk, P. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Gower, H. R.
Lagden, G. W.


Carr, Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lambert, Hon. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant-Ferris, Wg-Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lambton, Viscount


Channon, H.
Green, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Leavey, J. A.


Cole, Norman
Grimond, J.
Leburn, W. G.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gurden, Harold
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Cunningham, Knox
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Dance, J. C. G.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh




Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Teeling, W.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Profumo, J. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Rawlinson, Peter
Touche, Sir Gordon


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Redmayne, M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maddan, Martin
Renton, D. L. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wade, D. W.


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robertson, Sir David
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wall, Major Patrick


Mathew, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maude, Angus
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mawby, R. L.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Sharples, R. C.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Woollam, John Victor


Oakshott, H. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)



Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Page, R. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moss, R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oram, A. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, W. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Beswick, F.
Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holmes, Horace
Pearson, A.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hoy, J. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, B.
Reid, William


Carmichael, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Champion, A. J.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones,Rt.Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ledger, R. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Timmons, J.


Donnelly, D. L.
McGovern, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, Frank
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mahon, Simon
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)



Moody, A. S.








Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Winterbottom, Richard



Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Woof, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.


Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Zilliacus, K.



Question put and agreed to.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the said Amendment, in line 10, to leave out subsection (2).
4.30 p.m.
Here, again, I feel that the Government are behaving foolishly and once more showing their distrust of the Commission. They are saying, in effect, that every time one of the vehicles which will be operating under contract goes for repair and one of the reserve vehicles is put in its place, the Commission or the British Road Service Contract Company will have to go through the paraphernalia and the nuisance of applying for a licence for the relief vehicle before it can operate. As, presumably, that will happen frequently, it seems to be putting an unnecessary and foolish burden on the Commission and, maybe, on the licensing authorities as well.
We suggest, therefore, that this subsection is unnecessary. Since the Minister has himself taken powers to restrict the number of reserve vehicles which the Commission is allowed to run, although it was unlikely to want an excess number of vehicles, we feel that this provision is contrary to all reason.
The Minister said that he would apply to the Commission the principles of enlightened private enterprise, but I suggest that here, as in the previous Clause to which we moved an Amendment, these are not principles of enlightened private enterprise but principles of Bedlam. Would not it be far wiser to leave the organisation and arrangement of such detailed technical matters to the unfettered control of the Commission? The Government ought to trust it rather than make it go to the unnecessary trouble which is being forced upon it by this objectionable subsection.

Mr. J. Harrison: With every respect, I want to differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). He has suggested that the provisions of this Bill, even as amended in another place, are principles of bedlam when applied to the contract carrying business of the British Transport Commission. I do not believe they are principles of Bedlam. I believe they have been deliberately put into the Bill especially to

contract the operations of road haulage under the British Transport Commission.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) mentioned equality of opportunity. I believe that these Clauses are designed deliberately to handicap road haulage carried on by the Commission, and thereby to give private enterprise a chance to get in. Our experience of the operations of British Road Haulage undertakings is that they have been able to beat private enterprise when operating on level terms. That is why I say that these are not principles of Bedlam but have been deliberately designed by the Government to hinder road haulage undertakings under the Commission, and so I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment.

Mr. McLeavy: I support this Amendment strongly. I think there is a case here for the Minister to consider whether, even if the vehicles in question retain the licence, they will not be able to operate until new contracts have been obtained or are to be used in substitution of other vehicles. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will correct me?
I do not know whether it would be correct to say that the A licences could lie in abeyance—which means that they would not be usable—until the British Transport Commission wanted to use them either to replace existing vehicles or to carry out a new contract.
As I see it, the position is that the A licence would be revoked immediately, and then the Commission, if it wished to use the vehicles at a later date to meet its requirements, would have to go through the formality of applying to the licensing authority to get the vehicles relicensed. It seems to be a clumsy method. I should have thought that the Minister's point would have been amply satisfied if he had merely said that the licences could not be used unless for the purposes laid down in the Bill.
It is important that we should cut down unnecessary administrative costs and unnecessary employment in administration. In the case of A licences for vehicles where a contract has ceased, it seems to me that a lot of clerical work


by the Commission and the licensing authority would be avoided if the licences were left with the Commission and sufficiently strong provisions were incorporated—I believe it is so laid down in the Bill—to prevent the Commission from using the licences except for the replacement of other vehicles or for new contracts.
It seems to me that a lot of absolutely unnecessary work and complication is being created. I would urge the Minister to look at the matter again. We ought to do everything we can, even in this small way, to reduce wasted clerical work by the Commission, the licensing authority and the Ministry. Economy in manpower would result from the accumulation of administrative economies of this kind. The Government should set a lead to industry in economising in this way. I was always taught that very often a person who economises in small things economises in large things as well. I hope the Government will endeavour to avoid unnecessary duplication and leave the Commission in peace to get on with the magnificent work that it is doing for industry.

Mr. D. Jones: The Minister advanced the thin argument that the last Amendment was a wrecking one. He cannot say that about this Amendment, which stands entirely by itself.
The Minister is proposing to make it permissible for a number of vehicles in excess of the statutory requirements at any given date to be made over to the companies. However, that is not to be decided by the Commission. Already the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Commission are to agree on the number of additional vehicles to be handed over. So far as it goes, that is all right, but, even at that point, if there is disagreement, the Minister comes into the picture and decides what the number shall be. Therefore, the Minister in the first place has a right indirectly to decide what number of spare vehicles shall be carried. In case the Minister later retorts that that is the business of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, I would remind him that in a very short time he or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be moving an Order to bring the Board to an end on 28th August. Therefore, from the time this business starts—

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: The decision as to the numbers will be taken before the Board ends its duties.

Mr. Jones: I am glad the Minister has said that. It is an additional reason for an Amendment. If all the work is to be done beforehand, there is no need to give the Minister a residual power in the event of disagreement.
The right hon. Gentleman will decide how many spare vehicles a company shall be entitled to hold. So far as it goes, that seems to be reasonable and in keeping with enlightened principles of free enterprise. However, the Minister goes on to say that not only is the Board going to decide in advance how limited the spare vehicles shall be but it is to be made as awkward as possible for the company to use the spare vehicles.
The Amendment says:
Where any vehicles are made over to a company under this section, any A licence under which they were authorised to be used before they are so made over shall cease to have effect. …
Therefore, even if an A licence existed right up to the day before a vehicle was made over, it would cease to have effect, and every time such vehicles were afterwards used as replacements the company would have to go to the trouble of applying to the licensing authority.
It might happen that a vehicle is required only to replace one vehicle for a short time. If that vehicle again becomes spare for a week, does it mean that the A licence obtained three weeks previously is then null and void, and the company has to go through the whole process again? If in a period of 52 weeks the vehicle is used temporarily to replace ten or a dozen vehicles already operating in the fleet, does it mean that the company has to make ten or a dozen applications to the licensing authority? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind when he speaks about the enlightened principles of private enterprise?
I rather incline to the view expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) that the provision is designed simply to harass the Commission and the companies over which it has control. There can be no other reason for it. Deletion of the provision would not affect the primary purpose of the Clause. It cannot even be


argued that this would wreck the Bill. All that it is seeking is to do what the ordinary companies would do, faced as they are with the difficulties which arise in any modern transport concern of having to replace vehicles at short notice when carrying a limited number of vehicles which could be used instantaneously to replace vehicles in the fleet.
The right hon. Gentleman ought not to harass the Commission to this extent if he wants to get from it and from employers the co-operation which he talks about, both in this House and in the country. He should look at this matter again and not make it almost impossible for the Commission to operate on up-to-date commercial lines. If he really meant what he said when he talked about the enlightened principles of private enterprise being applied to nationalised undertakings, he will give the Commission at least a reasonable chance in the open market to do this job properly. If he accepts this Amendment, it will not wreck his Bill nor wreck his new Clause; it will merely bring it in line with modern commercial practice.

Mr. Watkinson: It has been fascinating to sit here and listen to this very interesting debate and to realise that it would never have arisen at all if it were not for the fact that I had given a considerable concession to the Opposition in this part of the Bill. It does not appear to be welcome. That is no doubt the lot of those who try to give concessions to their opponents and perhaps it indicates that we should not give them. There does not seem to be much gratitude for what is, after all, quite a major concession.
All that I would say on this Amendment—which is a very proper Amendment to put forward—is that all that the proposals seek to do is to put upon the Commission the normal commercial practice which any other operator of a hire fleet of this kind would have to perform. That is that he has to obtain an ordinary A licence under the ordinary procedure of the 1933 Act for vehicles when he wants to bring them from reserve or use them in substitution while a vehicle is being repaired. There is nothing special or novel about that.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not know of a single ordinary commercial firm

which carries A-licensed vehicles in excess of its daily demands?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not saying anything of the kind. I was saying that the purpose of this proposal, which is a substantial concession to the British Transport Commission, and should really help it in the operation of its contract hire fleet, is what is done under the normal commercial arrangement of A licences as applied in the normal commercial private hire field, and it is on those grounds that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
The Amendment would also, incidentally, if I were prepared to accept it, further delay the Bill. I think that perhaps the Opposition and myself are on common ground in wanting to get this settled—and I agree with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) in saying this—in order that the Commission may get on with its very necessary job of providing a better service and, indeed, a very good service to industry. So I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister has rejected our Amendment with the minimum number of words and with the minimum amount of argument. He said that he had made a "substantial" concession, and he also used the word "major" concession. The House should bear in mind what is this major concession.
The right hon. Gentleman told us, in replying to our earlier discussion on a former Amendment, that it was 60 vehicles. Here is the British Road Service to be left with some 7,750 vehicles for its general haulage and some 1,300 as contract vehicles and for the present its parcels and meat services, and now he is making a concession of 60 small contract vehicles.

Mr. Watkinson: It is the relation between 60; and I must make it plain that I am not committed to that exact number of 60, as against 100. That is a substantial proportion of 100.

Mr. Davies: I do not agree. When the Commission decided, as it did in the past, that it required 100 vehicles as a reserve for its contract fleet, and that contract fleet has been again reduced by the action of Government concessions


from 1,900 vehicles to 1,300, the Minister, by reducing the float from 100 to 60, is reducing it out of proportion to the reduction in the total fleet. Surely a float of 60 is not a large reserve for some 1,300 vehicles.
What I do not understand is that the Minister informed us that the Disposal Board is going to fix the number of these vehicles before it is dissolved on 28th August. Will the Board know by 28th August how many contract vehicles are to be left with the Commission? So far as I understand it, until the end of the year the Commission has to renew its contracts or put up the vehicles available for disposal, and by the end of August it will not necessarily know how many of these vehicles are to be left with it.
There are, I believe, some 500 vehicles which are still uncertain and for which the renewal of contracts has not yet been completed. It may be that most of these will be required but, on the other hand, some will be put up for disposal. So to fix this reserve at 60 on, presumably, a rigid, inflexible basis seems to be treating the Commission rather unfairly. Although there is a concession of about 60 vehicles, what we are arguing about is purely the question whether these 60 vehicles shall have A licences or not, if they happen to have them at the present time. That is all that we are asking the Minister to concede.
We must get this matter in proportion. Although we are cutting down the Commission by this great number of vehicles for disposal, although the Minister has whittled down the number which he is allowing it to retain by taking 7½ per cent. of its vehicles away and fixing its tonnage at a level which means that it loses another 100 vehicles, and although he is refusing to allow the Commission to take over vehicles with C licences and reducing the total fleet below that originally proposed when the Bill was originally introduced, he is refusing the Commission 60 A licences for its contract vehicles. This is a pretty mean action on the part of the Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any sense of proportion in regard to British Road Services and the road haulage fleet of the British Transport Commission. All we are asking is that

where the Commission is transferring to its reserve these 60 or more vehicles, if they carry licences at the present time they shall be allowed to continue to have those licences. It will then be saved the trouble of applying to the licensing authority every time one of its contract vehicles goes out of service for repair or maintenance and it substitutes one of the reserve vehicles. It will have all the bureaucratic administrative bother of applying to the licensing authority and obtaining the necessary formal permission. That is an unnecessary labour imposed on the Commission, and I think that the Minister should not treat the Commission with such contempt as he does.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this would further delay the Bill. That is not quite a fair argument, because he knows full well that if this Amendment were carried there are arrangements whereby this House and another place get together and decide on whether they shall accept the Amendment or not. If they accept it, then the Bill can receive the Royal Assent in the usual way. It is quite clear that between now and the Summer Recess there is time for the necessary arrangements to be made for the Bill to receive the Royal Assent as now planned.
I do not think that there is any argument in that for rejecting the Amendment. The Minister is rejecting it because he dare not make this further minor concession for fear of the back benchers who have caused him to whittle down the number of vehicles which the Commission is to retain.

Clause 4.—(REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF TRAILERS COVERED BY LICENCES UNDER PART II OF FIRST SCHEDULE TO TRANSPORT ACT, 1953.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 2, leave out "the last preceding section" and insert:
either of the two last preceding sections".

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on new Clause A.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it consequential? I had expected a better explanation of the Amendment than that. I have read it more than once and I can make neither head nor tail of it. What we are here proposing is to leave out the last preceding section and to insert either of the two last preceding sections. I have heard of one Section being last, but not two. Perhaps the Minister will tell us which of the Sections to which the Amendment refers is to be the last.
I know that this Amendment comes to us from another place, where the vast majority of those who sit there have had the advantage of an excellent education, but I must say that I have never heard of two being last. I know that one can sometimes have a photo finish and have two being equally first, but I have never heard of two being last. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is meant by these words, which appear to be completely ungrammatical and to make nonsense.

Mr. Watkinson: The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that if any of the vehicles are trailers, licences granted to the Commission under Part II of the First Schedule of the Transport Act, 1953, shall be reduced by that number, also.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Although that may be the purpose, the wording is the worst possible grammar and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves.

New Clause B.—(APPLICATION TO COMMISSION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO HOLDING COMPANIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 39, at end insert:
.—(1) For the purposes of the definition of the expression "holding company" in subsection (3) of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, the Commission shall be deemed to be a company, and the said section twelve (both as originally enacted and as applied by any subsequent enactment, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of subsection (7) of section five of the Transport Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of the said section twelve where property is made over to a company under that section).

Mr. Watkinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is a clear gain to the Commission and removes an anomaly which, quite frankly, I and my advisers should have seen before. Section 1 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, states:
… no person shall use a goods vehicle … except under a licence.
It defines "use" by saying:
… the person whose agent or servant the driver is, shall, … be deemed to be the person by whom the vehicle is being used.
One of the effects of that provision is that drivers employed by one company or person may not drive a vehicle owned by another company or person.
The Amendment enables the Commission to save money and labour by making the most efficient use of its driving staff where two or more of its subsidiary companies use the same depot. For instance, if B.R.S. (Pickfords) Ltd., as a result of sickness, finds itself short of staff, a spare driver of B.R.S. Ltd. which is a separate company could be used to drive one of the Pickford vehicles. This is a sensible new Clause, and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us that if the new Clause is accepted companies controlled by the Transport Commission will be permitted to exchange their drivers? They cannot exchange their vehicles without applying for a new A licence to do so.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: That surely is so. It is a strange anomaly, but I think that the Minister might comment and say whether my hon. Friend is correct, as I am sure he is.

Mr. Watkinson: That is the purpose of the new Clause, but it has nothing to do with vehicles.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Will the Minister give us a little more information? Here we have an organisation which has a staff which both sides of the House agree to be in the main very effective and efficient. The other place has called attention to a weakness in the Bill which would have meant that each company would have had to have kept its staff separate. To run the organisation effectively and efficiently, and to make the best use of the staff available, staff which has a knowledge of the traffic being handled, the routes being run and the vehicles being used, may be alternated between one company


and another. On this side of the House we accept that. It is effective and efficient, but the same argument applies with equal force to vehicles.
If a group of vehicles is available and the vehicles are required for particular traffics, why should there be unwholesome and uneconomic process of having to apply for new licences? In reply to an interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), the Minister said that private enterprise is not under this restriction.

Mr. Watkinson: What we are trying to do is to give the Commission exactly the same latitude as private companies placed in the same position.

Mr. Lindgren: Private companies placed in the same position have a surplus of vehicles with A licences and the Minister knows it. The Minister knows that there is considerable evasion and breaking of the licensing laws with private enterprise using vehicles with the wrong licences. Those of us who are associated with magistrates' courts know that until there is an accident we are not able to catch private enterprise using the wrong vehicles with the licences.
The Minister should make a concession. I admit that we have now passed the stage at which he could do that, but we are enabled to call attention to the fact that there should be mobility of staff to help in full employment of the staff

and to prevent men standing idle. If the Minister would apply the same criterion to vehicles, British Road Services would be a much more effective organisation and would render a far better service to the trader, because it would not be held up by administrative rules and regulations when it wanted immediately to meet the demands upon it.

Mr. McLeavy: It may be said that the good wine usually comes at the end of the meal, and in a limited way I congratulate the Minister on accepting at least one commonsense view. I am sure that the members of my trade union who are engaged in this industry will feel that a commonsense attitude towards their employment has been adopted. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) developed another point about the interchange of vehicles where the same commonsense rule should apply. Nevertheless, we welcome this Amendment. What it proposes is obviously right. My one regret, now that we are parting with the Bill, is that the Minister has not been more forthcoming on the more fundamental matters which have been raised in our discussions.

Title

Postponed Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 6, after "Fund)" insert:
to extend certain enactments relating to holding companies to the British Transport Commission".

ROAD HAULAGE DISPOSAL BOARD (ABOLITION)

5.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I beg to move,
That the Draft Road Haulage Disposal Board (Abolition) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
This is an Order for the abolition of the Board which was set up by the Act of 1953. It is a very great pleasure to me to move that the Order be approved. I hope that after a certain amount of controversy this afternoon I may have the support of the Opposition now that we have reached this further business. The Opposition made it quite plain that they did not like the 1953 Act, and during all the stages of the Bill which has just been passed by the House they made it plain that they did not think it went far enough. But it is largely as a result of the modifications made by the Bill to the provisions of the 1953 Act that the functions of the Road Haulage Disposal Board can now be said to be completed.
I am confident that the House will join in paying a tribute to all those who have been concerned with the administration of the disposal of these vehicles, and that those who were most disapproving of the policy will join me in paying tribute to the way in which that policy has been carried out by public-spirited men. We are all familiar with Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve's long record, of his having been asked upon a number of occasions to take over the administration of particularly difficult public undertakings, and on each occasion acquitting himself with distinction. We are confident that the same will happen when, under the Crown Estate Bill, he takes on still another public responsibility. Mr. Orchin, as his Deputy Chairman, and the other members of the Board who were appointed to represent certain interests which were likely to be affected, have co-operated with the Chairman, and the Minister has never been called upon to discharge his deciding function in the event of a difference of opinion amongst the members.
I should also like to pay tribute to the way in which the British Transport Commission has fulfilled its work. It was that body which was responsible for the disposal of the vehicles under the general control and supervision of the Board. It was an unpalatable task for the Commission, because it involved selling vehicles which were running at a profit. On behalf of the Government I should like to express our admiration for the integrity and high sense of duty with which the Commission has discharged the obligation placed upon it by Parliament.
The work done has been upon a considerable scale. No less than 29,400 vehicles have been offered for sale in 28 lists of transport units and four companies. Of the remaining 6,000 vehicles not offered for sale, nearly 2,000 were contract hire vehicles, to be sold under the special arrangement made between the Commission, the Board and the Road Haulage Association. Another 3,600 were the Commission's originally retained fleet.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not see anything about this in the Order.

Mr. Molson: I thought that at the time when the Board was being wound up it might be appropriate to refer to the work which has been done, but if you do not think that is in order upon this occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I certainly shall not pursue the matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have to carry out the rules. We can talk only about what is contained in the Order, and it is a simple Order, dealing with the abolition of the Disposal Board.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely, if we are debating an Order which provides for the winding-up of the Board, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is in order to debate whether the Order should be passed, and whether the Board should be wound up. Surely we are entitled to consider whether the Board's task has been completed or not. I thought that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was explaining how the Board had undertaken the task.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so. I would not differ from that. If the matter can be dealt with in that way I shall be quite happy.

Mr. Molson: In that case, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will explain that it is the completion of the work put upon the Board by Parliament which justifies the Order for winding it up. Of the 10,200 vehicles offered but not sold, 4,200 belong to the parcels company, 500 to the meat company, and the 5,500 additional general haulage vehicles are those which, under the Bill, the Commission is now allowed to keep.
The last page of the Sixth Report of the Board indicates the responsibilities which it has not yet discharged and which, under the Order, will fall to be discharged by the Minister. The Board is conducting an audit of all vehicles for disposal under the 1953 Act. All remaining vehicles suitable for disposal in transport units will be offered in a final list. There will then remain only a number of vehicles which the Commission will have certified as non-runners, and the Minister has agreed to the sale of these as chattels.
There is a further matter relating to premises and other property and, finally, the matter which has been discussed this afternoon, relating to the disposal of spare vehicles additional to those required for contract hire. Because this work has now been completed I commend the Order to the House.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am sure that we all agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in congratulating the British Transport Commission upon the way in which it has co-operated with the Road Haulage Disposal Board in the very unhappy task of disposing of its vehicles. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen, in the recent issue of the British Transport Review, an article by a member of the Commission's staff, Mr. Raymond, which describes in some detail the colossal task involved in organising the sale of the vehicles in conjunction with the Disposal Board.
We should congratulate the Commission on the smooth way in which it succeeded in carrying on while the disposal of vehicles was taking place. It reflects great credit on the whole of the staff that, despite the dislocation caused by the disposal, they were able to continue to operate the services of the Commission at a profit. In fact, last year's Report shows that the profit was

well over £4 million, despite the fact that the fleet was running down throughout the period.
No tears will be shed over this Order, which brings the Disposal Board to an end. We on this side of the House would have preferred that the Board had never come into being and certainly it has lived far longer than was ever intended. I recall that during the debates in this House while the 1953 Act was passing through its various stages there were prophecies made from the Government Front Bench about the period during which it would be necessary to keep the Board in being.
When the present Secretary of State for the Colonies was Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation he said that disposal would take place by the end of 1953. Although, by that time, no vehicles had been sold, the right hon. Gentleman still went on with his prophecies. He stated that there would be about 10,000 vehicles sold by April, 1954. In fact, by June, 1954, only 5,000 had been sold and it was not until the end of that year that 10,000 vehicles had been disposed of.
It was not the fault of the Board that it encountered such difficulty about disposal, and I wish to pay a tribute to the work done, although it was work of which we disapproved. But the Act of 1953 imposed very difficult conditions on the Board and made it impossible—as we on this side of the House always predicted that it would be—for the Board to dispose of the full fleet of the B.R.S. The early sales were a complete flop; there is no question of that. The first lists that were published resulted in few bids and it was only by abandoning the original intention of the Act and by disposing of the vehicles in small units of ones, twos, threes and fours that the Board was able—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the bounds of the debate. We are dealing now only with the future.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I was endeavouring to show that the Board had failed in its task and, therefore, that is was not to be regretted that it is being wound up. The Board also failed to sell the parcels and meat organisations.
We are concerned about the second part of the Order, by which the functions previously carried out by the Board are to be handed over to the Minister. We are worried that this power should pass to the Minister because of his actions in the past. We saw the changes which occurred during the passage of the Bill. We saw the right hon. Gentleman departing from his original intention, and the recommendation of the chairman of the Board, that there should be 7,750 vehicles for general haulage.
That figure was cut down by 7½ per cent. regarding licences, and was then further cut down by fixing the total tonnage of unladen weight of the vehicles at a few hundred tons less than the figure which the Commission had said was necessary if it was to retain that permitted number of vehicles. The result was a further reduction by 101 vehicles which, in effect, means that the Commission's total fleet will be substantially less than was originally intended, and recommended by the chairman of the Board. In fact, the advice of the chairman has been set aside by the Minister.
Under this Order the Minister has power to carry out the functions given to the Disposal Board by the Bill which we discussed earlier. The right hon. Gentleman has the power to sell the parcels and meat organisations. It will now be for the Minister to decide when the two companies formed under the provisions of the Bill are to be put up for sale and whether he will accept the advice of the Commission about the tenders which may be received. It will not be an impartial Board, consisting of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve and his fellow members, which will make the decision, but a prejudiced Minister. I say "prejudiced," because of the right hon. Gentleman's previous actions in regard to the Commission. He has treated the Commission with contempt. He has been mean and petty in the way in which he has handled its affairs.
It gives me considerable concern, although the Minister has given us an undertaking that he will not use the powers conferred on him by the Order, and does not propose to put the parcels organisation up for sale for a year or two

until it has been revealed how commercially successful it may be. Presumably, the more successful the organisation is, the more it is likely that private enterprise will be interested in purchasing it; and the more likely it will be that the Government will desire to sell and to hand over a profitable national undertaking to private enterprise for profit-making purposes.
The Minister will not be concerned about the interests of the Commission, or whether the Commission will get a fair price, but simply about disposing of the parcels or meat organisations. Therefore, there is reason for concern about the way in which the Minister will exercise the power which passes to him from the Board under the terms of this Order. Instead of handing over the power to the Minister, it would be far better if it ceased to exist altogether; in other words, if this Order consisted entirely of the first part, and the second part was deleted.
That could easily be done by bringing to an end all disposal both of general haulage vehicles, as is now done, and parcels and meat organisations contracts, and the rest of it. It could have been stated that, with the termination of the Road Haulage Disposal Board under this Order, we stop all attempts at making further sales of vehicles and Commission-owned companies. Then the Minister would not have this power and the Commission would be left to get on with the job of running a successful road haulage undertaking. Obviously, we shall support this Order because it brings to an end a Board which, however well it may have done so, performed a task which did not commend itself to us and which we opposed at every stage. But we do not accept the Order without some qualms and some fears.
If only the Government had had the courage to stand up against their own back benchers and against the road haulage interests outside this House, and to listen to the advice coming from this side of the House, as well as from a large section of industry which has been filled with praise for the work which British Road Services have been doing, the first part of the Order would have been all that is necessary, and all further action in regard to road services disposals would have been brought to an end.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, at the beginning of his speech on this Order, said that it gave him great pleasure to move it because it will abolish the Road Haulage Disposal Board. I wondered what particular aspect of the work of the Board it gives him great pleasure to abolish, and I am quite willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he can indicate to us what is the pleasurable side of the abolition of this Board to him. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, also, that the Minister will take over responsibilities that have been up to now those of the Board.
I suggest that this proposal will in no way enable him to take over the road haulage disposal functions of the Board, because the Road Haulage Disposal Board has not yet completed, and has no intention of completing, because of modifications in the recent Bill, its original task. Therefore, it cannot be within the Ministry's power to do what the Road Haulage Disposal Board was doing in the first case, because the new Bill modified the original proposal considerably.
It gives me great pleasure to support this Order to abolish the Board because of the obvious injustice to the British Transport Commission's undertaking. The Commission was running these vehicles at a profit, and, while it was running them at a profit, along came the Government with a new Act of Parliament telling the Commission that it must dispose of them. It seems to me that that was a definitely cruel thing to do to the Commission and its road haulage undertaking, which was building up its fortunes in the busy transport industry of this country.
We were also told that this would be the chance for the little man to return to the industry. The operations of the Road Haulage Disposal Board would enable the little man to return. One result of these sales of vehicles, chattels and goodwill is that the little man has not come back into the industry at all. There have been sales of small lots of vehicles, but these sales have usually been made to people who are already in the industry, who, by the acquisition of a few more vehicles, were able substantially to increase their business. The excuse made in the first place was that this was the little man's opportunity, but the result has

not been that he has come back into the industry. I remember very well that in the debate on the Bill the Minister referred to this particular aspect of it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that point might be left outside the discussion on this Order.

Mr. Harrison: I am speaking about the pleasure which the Minister expressed in regard to this Order, but, if that is your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will continue by saying that I believe that this Order will be long remembered because it is a monument to the doctrinaire policy of the Government towards the nation's transport. What is more, it represents the introduction of politics into the industry, and not only that, but this cancellation notice gives us the idea that the Minister will still be able to muddy the waters, because he will still be personally responsible for some more disposals.
I feel that this Order will long be remembered as a shameful episode in the Government's history, and that it was only introduced to pacify the road haulage interests which were so bitterly declaiming against the nationalised industry. Their bitterness against the Transport Commission's undertaking was created by the success of the Commission's road haulage undertaking. That undertaking was proving a success far beyond the dreams of many people in this country, but, before it became too successful, the wrecking party started and the Bill which this House passed a short time ago was synonymous with the aims of that wrecking party.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I should like to begin by calling your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that this Order is in two parts. First of all, it seeks to dissolve the Board, and, secondly, it seeks to transfer the remaining functions of the Board, so far as they continue to operate, to the Minister. I say that in advance in order that, as I hope, you will not rule me out of order when I seek to discuss some of the powers which will remain and which, by virtue of this Order, are to be transferred to the Minister of Transport.
The Parliamentary Secretary to any Ministry has, during the course of his career, some distasteful tasks to perform,


but I should have thought that at least two other people ought to have been present this afternoon to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary reading the committal rites of the Road Haulage Disposal Board. Those two people should have been the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Colonial Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. One remembers over the years some of the dissertations which they made from that Dispatch Box between 1952 and the present time. For example, I can remember the present Colonial Secretary standing at that Dispatch Box and proudly proclaiming that within twelve months of that day the majority of these vehicles would be disposed of.
Earlier this afternoon, we discussed the question of the number of spare vehicles that are to be left with the companies, and I drew attention to the fact that this Order gives two bites at the cherry to the Minister of Transport, who was good enough to interrupt to say that all these factors would be settled before the date on which the Board was to come to an end. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was reading out the remaining powers which will be left after the demise of the Board, I observed that they included the subject of spare vehicles, and I should like to know which of the two right hon. Gentlemen is right. Is it the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or is it the Minister? Was the Minister correct earlier on when we discussed an Amendment from another place and when he said that all these figures of spare vehicles would be decided before 28th August, or is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary right when he says that the residue of this power now passes into the hands of the Minister?
In my judgment, it will be entirely wrong for the Minister to be statutorily entitled to take two bites at this cherry—first of all, that he should exercise the power of the Board, when the Board no longer exists, and, in the event of disagreement between himself, in place of the Board, and the Commission, should be able to come in, in a judicial fashion, and decide a matter on which he has already fallen out with the Commission. That seems to me to be an impossibility, even for the present Minister of Transport, and I should like to know from

the right hon. Gentleman what exactly is to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to pay a richly deserved tribute to the members of the Disposal Board, including their distinguished chairman. In the last fifty years nobody has ever had a more distasteful task to perform on behalf of a Government. The right hon. Gentleman was also good enough to pay tribute to the British Transport Commission. Its task was the hardest of all. Some of the members of the Road Haulage Executive Committee had worked long and laboriously building up a magnificent organisation out of 4,000 separate companies, and at one stroke they were committed to selling off the vehicles at far less than their value. The tribute was indeed richly deserved.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that all the vehicles which still remain to be sold are to be put into a final list. Will that list be made available? Will it be concluded before 28th August, or is the Minister again to play the role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as he attempted to do in so many other connections with the Transport Commission? If the list is not to be finally disposed of before 28th August, will the Minister exercise the functions of the Board in approving the prices offered for vehicles, and then, if the Commission disagrees with the price, will he act in a judicial capacity to settle a disagreement between himself and the Commission?
I regret very much that it is not possible to propose Amendments to the Order. If paragraph 2 ended at the fifth word it would be an admirable job. From time to time during the last three and a half years some of us have asked successive Ministers of Transport how long the Commission was to be subjected to this lack of firm decision, and for how long its property was to be offered in the open market.
Ought not the Minister to decide that on 28th August, when the Board comes to an end, all further interference with British Road Services ought to come to an end? He has already made two attempts to sell the 500 vehicles in the meat fleet, and on not one occasion has there been a suitable offer. He has already attempted to sell the parcels fleet which is doing a magnificent job assisting our economy. Is the Commission to be


saddled permanently with a doubt whether it is to continue to retain these two admirable fleets; is it to be prohibited permanently from building up and developing these two services so that they become far more efficient than they are today, in the hope that at some date in the future somebody will make an offer which the Minister will accept?
Do not the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary think that this is the opportune moment to bring all this doctrinaire policy to an end? I suggest that they have a glorious opportunity. The Disposal Board is to come to an end on 28th August, and the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill will probably have received the Royal Assent before we rise for the Summer Recess. Ought not the Minister now to bring the whole thing to an end and decide that on 28th August all further interference with the Commission shall cease? If he does that the Minister will earn the praise not only of the Commission, but of all trading interests in the country.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Molson: As a matter of courtesy I ought to answer some of the questions which have been asked. We have not had quite the enthusiastic approval of this Order by the Opposition that I had hoped we might have. On the other hand, the general tone has been that at any rate they welcome the Order for what it does.
I should like briefly to answer the last two points made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). It is the case that the remaining vehicles have been put into a final list. The list closes tomorrow and tenders are called for for next week. The hon. Gentleman asked whether—on the adjudication as between the Commission and the bidders—the Board would have taken the decision before it is dissolved. The answer is that those decisions will have been taken and therefore, the responsibility will not devolve upon the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman concluded by making a plea that we should bring to an end the whole of the disposal. I would only say that the Opposition welcomed the Bill of 1956. They chanted paeans of praise and self-congratulation that some of their forecasts had been justified and they told the country that the Government had made very substantial conces-

sions to the point of view which they have put forward. I think that it would have been graceful and charming on the part of the Opposition if they had expressed their gratitude for what they had received and had not asked for something more.

Mr. D. Jones: The paeans of praise would have been very much louder if the 1956 Bill had been a one-Clause Bill. That is all that was required.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The few words which the Parliamentary Secretary has just uttered spur me to make some comment. First, he said that the Order did not appear to have received enthusiastic approval from this side of the House. I assure him that our enthusiasm at the ending of the Road Haulage Disposal Board is unbounded. We thought at the beginning that it was given a wretched, miserable job by the Government, which it carried out exceedingly well, of damaging as far as it could the interests of the British Transport Commission by breaking up its magnificent road haulage organisation. It had the job of breaking up the structure of the Commission and seriously weakening its financial position, and thereby doing irreparable damage to the interests of British transport. As far as we are concerned, the sooner we say goodbye to this miserable Board, the better.
There remains a certain amount of work to complete and the Minister of Transport will now have to do it. We shall watch him closely and ensure, as far as we can, that there is an end to this wrecking process, which so far has been carried out at the behest and as a deliberate part of the policy of the Government, who believe in breaking up nationally-owned industries however valuable their work may be.
I must make one other comment arising out of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said—and I presume he was joking and could not have been serious—that he expected us to welcome this Order and the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill, 1956, and to express our gratitude to the Government. In case he said that with any degree of seriousness, I must reply.
We said from the outset that the road transport policy of Her Majesty's Government was fallacious, ill-advised and


wrong. We prophesied that it was so ridiculous that it was bound to break down. When it did break down and the Government had to produce the 1956 Measure to stop the disintegration, it is true that we said, "There you are. We told you that this was bound to happen." But why should we be expected to express gratitude to the Government for carrying out only three-quarters of their evil intent instead of 100 per cent? The Government have done irreparable damage. True, they have not gone as far as they promised to go in the early stages. Now that the instrument they used for the purpose is being wound up, we are exceedingly glad, but we do not thank the Government who are responsible for all the harm that has been done by their policy during the past years.

Resolved,
That the Draft Road Haulage Disposal Board (Abolition) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.

FISHING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES)

5.52 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
I am presenting to the House tonight no fewer than three fishery Schemes and one Order, which form four links in the chain of our policy for the fishing industry. With your permission Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think it would be for the convenience of the House, and would make this a more fruitful debate, if we could discuss all four together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that would meet the convenience of the House.

Mr. Amory: Let me first say one word about our policy, which is unchanged. The primary object of our policy in regard to these subsidies is to encourage the development of a modern self-sufficient fishing fleet. We have no intention of initiating a permanent subsidy or a regular yearly increase in the subsidy. When the white fish subsidy was introduced by the Labour Government in 1950, it was on a temporary basis—in fact, for six months. It has been renewed every six months from that time and has formed a very useful, if partial, measure of assistance to the industry.
In the course of time, it became obvious that the subsidy was not enough. The White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, was passed by the present Government, and it authorised the payment of a subsidy until 1958. The subsidy is accompanied by a constructive policy of grant-aiding the building of new fishing vessels. We always realised that the fleet could not hope to be self-supporting while it continued to consist very largely of coal-burning vessels, many of them very antiquated. That is why the heart of our policy has been, and still is, the encouragement of new building. It is encouraging to know that the programme of new building has gone forward pretty well since the grants were introduced in 1953.
Between 1947 and 1952, only six near and middle water trawlers were built a year, on the average. The first new grant-aided boats came in at the very end of 1953. There are now 50 grant-aided boats in use, and 18 more are due to be completed this year. Another 55 have been approved for grant and are expected to be completed on various dates from next January onwards. That makes a total of 123 new, modern vessels.
These new vessels are being built as fast as the building yards can turn them out. But even so only about 30 boats are being built a year; so the capacity of the building yards for the present seems to be deciding the speed at which the fleet can be replaced. The total fleet now is about 590 vessels and, of these, 433 are steam vessels. We have had it in mind all along that there should be a ten-year programme. Authority for building grants has been provided up to a total of £9 million under the Act of 1953 to cover the period up to 1963. Basing our opinion on the 123 new boats that have been approved for grant, we think there is every prospect at this rate that we shall see the complete rebuilding of the fleet with good modern vessels.
Meanwhile—this is the important point—we must make use of the fleet we have now. It is getting a little smaller but a little better every year, as the old coal-burners go out, but we cannot, in safety, allow the old coal-burners to go out too fast. The rate of decline of the steam fleet increased last year from 57 vessels, which dropped out in 1953, to 56 in 1954, to 87 in 1955, and during the first six months of this year, 51 more vessels left the fleet.
This is, of course, precisely what we intended, provided that new vessels are coming in. We have to accept the fact that we still have a large number of steam vessels that are relatively uneconomic to the owners, to the taxpayers and also to the nation at large because they are burning coal which we can ill afford. This decline in the number of steam vessels must not be allowed to get out of hand. The object of the white fish subsidy is to enable us to keep control of the rate of change-over to modern vessels.
I now come to the subsidies themselves. Let me take steam vessels first. I mentioned just now that there are about 433

steam vessels in the fleet. The House will recall that, when we debated this subject last year, we then increased the subsidy for the steam vessels by about £325,000 for a full year. Since then, the price of coal has gone up, and so have wages and other items, but there has been no comparable increase in the price of fish. We have to face the fact that the costs and earnings of the coal burners have not been keeping step, and so it is clearly necessary to give the steam vessels more subsidy so as to bring their costs and earnings nearer together. We cannot yet get on without these vessels, so that is the course that we have taken.
The additional cost of the subsidy that we are now providing for the steam vessels amounts to £650,000 a year, bringing the total for the steam vessels to about £2 million a year. Even this considerable addition to the subsidies will not enable many of the steam vessels to operate without loss. I know there was criticism last year that we were devoting too big a proportion of subsidies to the support of steam vessels. My answer must be to repeat the object, which is to retain in the fleet at present sufficient steam burners, even though they are proving more and more uneconomic, to enable us to ensure an adequate supply of fish to the nation.
I turn now to the motor trawlers. Their experience during the last twelve months has been broadly similar, although their costs have risen less seriously than those of the coal burners, largely because they do not burn coal. These motor trawlers are the vessels which we expect eventually to become completely self-supporting. Although I believe that that will happen in time, we have to accept the position that at present a good many of these vessels are not yet finding it possible to run at a profit after providing for depreciation in full. Depreciation always comes very heavily in the early years of a new vessel, but we hope that, as the coal-burners disappear and our conservation measures become more effective, these vessels will become completely self-supporting. Many, of course, are completely self-supporting already.
We have provided an increase in subsidy in the neediest class of motor trawler, although a more modest one than we have provided for the coal burners. The 90 ft.


to 100 ft. class motor trawlers, for instance, will now be able to get up to £3,000 subsidy per annum at the highest rate proposed. Hon. Members will see the rates in the Schedule to the Scheme. The bigger motor trawlers, those between 120 ft. and 130 ft. in length, have been showing considerably better results as a class. In their case we have had to reduce the rate of subsidy, and in the case of the biggest vessels of all—those between 130 ft. and 140 ft.—we consider that no subsidy at all is required. The overall subsidy increase in the case of motor trawlers is about £50,000 a year, bringing the total cost of subsidy for motor trawlers to about £250,000 a year.
I wish to say a word about seining vessels, because the motor seining vessels are treated rather differently. Seiners are less expensive to operate than trawlers and, therefore, have shown themselves better able to be run at a profit in the areas where they can operate. As the House knows, the seine net fishing is not a technique which can be advantageously employed everywhere. We have not found in the case of the seiners sufficient reasons for increasing the subsidy, which costs about £150,000 per annum.
I must now turn to the inshore vessels. Here again we have concluded that, on this occasion, no change in the subsidy is justified—either up or down. The House will remember that the inshore subsidy was decreased last year, or at the beginning of this year, by 2d. per stone. On that occasion, I said that I would very much welcome and would give fullest consideration to any fuller facts and figures that that section of the industry could provide. We immediately got in touch with the fishermen's organisations concerned, and we have been in touch with them since. With their co-operation, we conducted a special investigation into costs and earnings from samples of inshore fishermen's results obtained from different parts of the country.
About 1,000 inshore fishermen were approached in England and Wales, but I am sorry to say that only 116 replies were received and less than 60 produced information which was reasonably complete. I know it is difficult to expect anything like elaborate accounts from fishermen, who want to spend their time fishing, not keeping accounts. The last

thing I want to do is to impose any unreasonable requirements on these men. On the other hand, I cannot help feeling rather disappointed at the meagre response we got after the efforts we made and the assurances we had last year that we could and would get much fuller information.
Our own statistics in the case of the inshore fishermen point to a modest improvement in the results in 1955 against those of the previous year, but, as hon. Members will know, for inshore fishermen results are tremendously irregular from port to port and from type of vessel to type of vessel. The modest increase in earnings last year seems to us to have been sufficient to cover their additional costs. During the first five months of this year, the value of landings from inshore vessels in England and Wales has gone up by over one-third.
In Scotland, the response to our search for fuller information was more successful. There the returns showed that the Scottish fleet as a whole obtained quite respectable results for 1955 and, although their costs have increased, the year's earnings also increased. Indeed, their earnings per day at sea seem to have gone up about 15 per cent. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will no doubt be dealing in more detail with that later on in the debate. In the circumstances, although we gave very careful and sympathetic consideration to the representations made to us by the inshore fishermen, we could not find grounds on which we would be justified in increasing the subsidy for inshore vessels. At the present rate of 8d. per stone, this part of the subsidy costs about £600,000.
Now I turn to a change in the form of subsidy this year. At present and in the past the near and middle water vessels have received subsidy in two parts. First, there is what is known as a voyage payment on a sliding scale, the payment ceasing when proceeds from the voyage exceed a certain figure. In a way that was an insurance subsidy to provide a cushion against severe losses after an unsuccessful trip. No subsidy was paid when the trip had produced successful results. That subsidy was supplemented by what was called a landing payment of so much per stone on the fish landed, as an incentive to hard fishing.
The new scheme provides for only one form of subsidy, a flat rate payment of so much per day. Hon. Members will see the rates in the Schedule. The payments go up to £22 per day for the largest steam vesels and £10 per day for the most needy class of motor vessel. That subsidy is to be paid for every day the vessel is at sea and up to a maximum of 300 days per year. The day the vessel departs from port—that is not the correct word to use—

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: Sails.

Mr. Amory: Yes, sails—the day it returns to port, the day the fish is landed and the day on which it is sold, if that is not the same day as it comes back, are counted as days at sea. Payment will be made whether the trip has been a good one or a bad one, so the insurance element has disappeared. The new form of subsidy has been adopted at the request of the owners. It is a simplification on the old one. It allows the owners to know exactly where they stand. It is simpler to understand, simpler to administer, and I think it improves the incentive to hard fishing.
The new form will apply to all vessels between 70 feet and 140 feet and also to seining vessels under 70 feet which normally make trips of eight days or more, because they were brought last January to the same system as the vessels of the near and middle water fleets. In the case of seining vessels which make long trips, whether they are over or under 70 feet, there remains a vestige of an insurance element, because it is proposed that these vessels should receive relatively high rates of subsidy in the winter months and none at all in the summer. This is to help them when they need it most in the short days of bad weather in the winter when seining is particularly difficult. The seiner owners favour this arrangement.
One further important change relates to the share of the payments received by officers and crews. Until now the subsidy has been reckoned as part of the gross proceeds of the catch, and when the remuneration of the crew has been settled on the gross earnings, that has meant that the officers and crews have shared in the subsidy payment—on the

basis of about 75 per cent. to the owners and 25 per cent. to the officers and crews.
That arrangement was right and proper in 1950 when the subsidy scheme started, because it was begun as a compensation for the falling prices of fish, which were reflected in the crews' earnings no less than in those of the owners. However, of late it has become a growing anomaly because the increases that we gave in the subsidies last year and this year were related not to the falling prices of fish, but to rising costs, and one of the important elements in rising costs has been rising wages. Therefore, we have had the rather strange result that the subsidy has gone up because costs, including wages, have gone up, and that part of the increased subsidy has gone as a further addition to wages.
We feel, however, that we ought not to take away the share that officers and crews are at present receiving from the subsidies which are now being paid, because the effect of that would be to reduce their remuneration. The fairest way seems to us to be to provide that officers and crews paid on the gross earnings should continue to receive a share of the subsidy payments up to the average subsidy earned by the class of vessel with which they are concerned at the rates now in force, but that they should be excluded from sharing in any further increase in the subsidy which is being made now or in the future.
Column 3 of the Schedule to the Scheme will show hon. Members the sums per day at sea which it is proposed should be shared by crews who are paid on the gross earnings. Crews which are excluded from sharing in the increase will in the aggregate be neither better nor worse off than they are at present, but, of course, they will indirectly share in the benefit resulting from the payment of subsidies to the fleet in which they serve, because it is a fleet which, without the help of the subsidies, would be going out of existence very rapidly indeed.
The change will not apply to officers or men who are being remunerated on the basis of the vessel's net earnings as against gross earnings. Clearly, their remuneration will be hit by rising costs which the increased subsidies are designed to offset. Therefore, it is only right that they should share also in any consequent increases of subsidy.
This arrangement will not be applicable to seiners or inshore vessels, because they are paid on a different basis, and in those cases, anyhow, the subsidy is not being increased.
I must also say a word about the White Fish Subsidy (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order. When I presented the subsidy for the period we are now in, I said I estimated the cost of the current subsidy to be £2·3 million per year. The effect of the new rates will be to increase the total cost to about £3 million per year. By the beginning of this month we had already spent about £6½ million out of the £7½ million which is available under the 1953 Act, and the £7½ million will probably run out in the course of the next few months.
However, the 1953 Act allows the total sum to be increased to £10 million by Order with the approval of the House, and the purpose of the Order which I am presenting tonight is to authorise the increase of £2½ million. The total of £10 million should see us through the coming year and, consequently, through the life of the Scheme which we are discussing and which is due to expire on 31st July, 1957. But the £10 million will not last much longer than that, and it is the Government's intention to introduce new legislation next Session to authorise the payment of subsidy up to 1961—otherwise it ends in 1958—and to provide powers by which the period can be extended to 1963 by Order if that should prove necessary.
That is not to be taken as a guarantee that subsidy payments will necessarily continue until 1963. I hope very much that circumstances will enable us to cease paying subsidy before 1963. That is the date when the building grants end and we hope that by then the fleet will have been substantially rebuilt and that the subsidy will no longer be required.
Further to aid the modernisation of the fleet, it is also the Government's intention to make provision in new legislation for the payment of grants towards the cost of converting coal-burning vessels to oil fuel. I am anxious that these grants should be available at the earliest practicable date, and details are now being worked out. I believe that will make a very useful, though perhaps modest, contribution towards the further modernisation of the fleet.
I ought also to say a word about the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme and the Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme. Here we are making provision to increase the maximum grant which can be paid for a new vessel in the case of the white fish industry generally from £25,000 to £30,000 a vessel, and in the case of the herring industry from £12,000 to £15,000. These changes can be made without fresh legislation.
The maximum grant was deliberately not fixed in the 1953 Act, because it was realised that there might be changes in building costs which would have to be taken into account from time to time. In fact, building costs have risen considerably over the past few years. A boat which cost £100,000 to build in 1953 would now cost £120,000 or £125,000. The effect of that is that under our existing provisions we should be limited to paying almost 20 per cent. grant instead of the 25 per cent. grant which was statutorily provided for. It was never the intention to restrict the rate of grant due to rising building costs, and I am sure that hon. Members generally will welcome these Amendments which do no more than enable us to continue to provide a grant of 25 per cent.
There is another amendment falling within this same provision with which I can, I think, deal very briefly. It exempts vessels engaged in what is known as long-line fishing from the limit that is otherwise imposed on the number of voyages that a grant-aided near or middle water vessel can make to distant waters. The reason for this limitation in the number of voyages was that the distant water fleet is not subsidised and it would not be fair that those vessels should face competition from subsidised vessels. These long-lining vessels, however, are not competitive with the distant water trawlers, and the change that we are suggesting will end what has really amounted to an anomaly, and I am sure will be welcomed, in Aberdeen particularly.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Schemes and the Order, taken together with the undertaking which I have given this evening about new legislation, are logical and sensible measures for carrying out the policy which this


Government have been steadily pursuing in regard to the fishing industry since we came into office. That policy is to use Government-provided financial assistance to help to create a modern, vigorous, competitive fishing fleet—a fishing fleet capable of standing of its own legs—or perhaps I should say floating on its own bottoms. When that has been done we shall open the way to being able to dispense with subsidies altogether. I am confident that that policy and these measures are sound.
We are all justly proud of our fishermen and our fishing fleet, of their robust and independent spirit. We are all conscious of the service which they have rendered and are rendering to the nation in peace as in war. The whole House, I am sure, will want our fishing industry to continue to prosper, and I am also sure that no hon. Member is likely to grudge them the help which we are proposing this afternoon. I commend the Order and the Schemes to the House.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: We have listened to the Minister deploying his case with his usual courtesy and charm of manner. If I may say so, he has done it much more effectively than he did last December when, having just recovered from a storm of criticism of his original proposals, he came to the House chastened and hesitant. Nevertheless, in spite of his performance this afternoon, which we all appreciate, I feel that he still seems more at home on the farm than on the deep blue sea.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who wound up the debate on the occasion to which I have referred, and who, I understand, is to wind up the debate tonight, then seemed even more confused. He failed utterly to answer any of the questions put to him, and we can only hope that at the end of this debate we shall see him make a real attempt to get his teeth into the criticism to which, no doubt, he will be subjected from both sides of the House. I hope that the House will forgive me if I adopt a rather more astringent tone than that of the very agreeable accents of the Minister.
Apart from the merits or demerits of the Schemes and the Order, we on this side of the House—and, I suspect, many hon. Members opposite also—cannot conceal our real disappointment at the

Government's attitude towards problems of the fishing industry in general. We have previously had before us these Orders, which deal with a restricted field. We have asked on many occasions for time to be afforded by the Government in order that the House might debate the general condition of the industry and the difficulties and anxieties confronting it. When the Labour Government were in power they introduced a series of legislative enactments dealing with the industry in all its phases, both in regard to white fish and to herring. We have not had a major debate on the subject since 1953. All we have had have been discussions following the laying of new Orders relating to subsidies, and the measures which we are debating tonight.
Last December I raised the matter again, and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—whom I am very sorry to see is not here now—in her vigorous manner, spent most of the time during her contribution to the debate in dodging, very effectively, the decisions of the Chair. The underlying theme of her argument was "Let us get down to a real discussion of the fishing industry". The Minister, true to form and as is customary in these debates, paid tribute to the rôle of the fishing fleets in time of war. He extolled the bravery and endurance of our fishermen. That is common form. We always do that on such occasions, as we should. Nevertheless, the Government do very little to provide a forum in which can be discussed all the difficulties and problems and hazards of the fishing industry and the conditions of the men in it. That is treating that industry with less than consideration—indeed, with contempt.
Fishing is one of the three basic primary producing industries. The other two are agriculture and mining. All three battle directly with nature for the benefit of our people, and all other industries depend upon them. It is not as though there were not enough matters of prime importance to the industry that we could discuss here. A few come to my mind which I should like to have the opportunity to discuss at some time when the Government feel disposed to give that opportunity for debate. There are the Reports of the White Fish Authority and of the Herring Industry Board and the


reactions of the different sections of the industry to both of those bodies. There is the question of over-fishing, which still remains a problem, and the flagrant, blatant contravention by foreign vessels of the agreement, raised in this House only by Parliamentary Question.
There is the agreement with Denmark over the Faroes and with the Russians the White Sea and the Barents Sea area. There is the collapse of the East Anglian herring industry; new developments in scientific research into fish breeding and the dispersal of shoals. Then what about recruitment and training? That is a major problem in the industry and is related to conditions on board. They are all related in a sense to these present measures, but no doubt if we were to embark on a long discussion of any of those projects we should be ruled out of order. Overall there is the ever-present spectre of continually rising costs.
I was very disturbed to see in one of the fishing papers this week a cutting relating to the Scottish Fishery Estimates. It seems that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In the cutting is the statement:
A decrease of £105,900 for fisheries, including the herring industry, is shown in this year's estimates for the Scottish Home Department.
The biggest cut is one of £30,000 in connection with the acquisition of new research vessels. Funds for the replacement of fishery protection vessels have been cut by £28,750, while the grant in aid of the Herring Marketing Fund is down by £10,000. There are also reductions of £10,000 in respect of harbour authorities, and of £10,000 in connection with the provision of boats and engines for fishermen as well as grants and loans to the Herring Industry Board.
These are questions that relate to the prosperity of the industry and to the happiness and efficiency of the fishermen, and yet year after year since 1953 the House has not been able to discuss the problems with the Government and demand that some sort of action should be taken in order that those aspects of the industry can be improved.
I think that hon. Members, at all events on this side of the House, have a legitimate cause for complaint at the failure of the Government to consult them in any way whatever on their intentions with regard to these Orders and Schemes.

Again, we have the same procedure. The Orders are laid, and there is no time to debate them before the Government make up their minds. I think that the Minister was less than forthcoming when, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who asked on what date the new White Fish Subsidy Orders would be laid before the House, he said:
As early as possible next month, though I cannot as yet give a precise date.
My hon. Friend said:
In view of what happened last time, when the right hon. Gentleman's blunder was ameliorated in the light of Parliamentary criticism, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be an opportunity to discuss this Scheme fully before the Recess?
The Minister replied:
I will give the hon. Member that assurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 20.]
Many of us misinterpreted that assurance. Some of my hon. Friends and I thought that we would have an opportunity to discuss the implications of the present position of the industry before these Schemes and the Order were laid. I should have thought it reasonable that the fishing interests in this House should have an opportunity of discussing the matter and deploying our case to the Minister before he came to the House with a cut-and-dried scheme.
On the previous occasion, the Minister had an experience which, I suppose, he did not want to repeat, because when he laid the first Scheme he had to take it back and re-model it. He was wise on this occasion, for he did not give anybody an opportunity to discuss the terms of the Scheme in the House before tonight.
I put a question to the Leader of the House when we were discussing the order of business, and I complained that no opportunity was given in the House to discuss these Orders before they become operative. These Schemes and the Order will become operative tonight as soon as the House rises. Even if the Minister were amenable to the case that we might deploy, what chance have we to have the Schemes and the Order altered tonight? None whatever.
Having adopted a rather harsh tone so far, I think I ought to say that the Minister has been in close contact with the industry. I know that he has taken


into consultation those who fish in the near and middle waters, and he has just told us of the consultations he has had with the inshore fishing people before coming to a decision on the terms of these Schemes and the Order, but I think it is due to those of us in this House who take an interest in fishing that we should have an opportunity to state our case before these Statutory Instruments are laid. Many hon. Members have expressed the same point of view.
I do not propose to say anything about inshore fishing. I know that many knowledgeable Members on both sides of the House with a great deal of experience will want to say a great deal about it. I should, however, like to say one thing. It is well known that the best quality fish comes from inshore and near water fishing. My own part of Lowestoft maintains a high standard of quality fish, and although the catches are small compared with distant water ports, it is essential, if we are to encourage our people to eat more fish, that there should be a good supply of quality fish and of great variety at a reasonable price. I have said this many times, and it is a view which is upheld by many who are interested in the welfare of the fishing fleet.
Originally, when these subsidies were instituted, it was with that object in view—that there should be variety and good quality and that we should do all that we could to induce our people to become—I was going to say "more fish-minded"—more interested in fish as an important part of their diet. I do not consider that we are a fish-eating community. This country is not like some of the great Catholic countries, where a day is set apart for fish-eating—although I would not like fish-eating to be regarded as a penance. We do not want people to eat fish merely because the day is Friday. We want people to eat fish on Mondays as well, and not because they cannot get meat, but because they like fish. I do not want to say anything derogatory about the long-distance vessels, but we can only provide that kind of quality fish from the inshore and near water fisheries.
We on this side of the House welcome these Statutory Instruments in general, although there are several aspects which

need drastic revision. Compared with the Orders that were promulgated last December, they have gone a long way to meet the wishes of the industry. We particularly welcome the power that the Minister is taking under the 1953 Act to increase the overall grant from £7,500,000 to £10 million. I was very interested indeed to hear that it was the intention of the Government to ask for new powers next year when this initial grant runs out, because I have put to the Minister several Questions on this matter of the tapering off of the grant. I can conceive that it is the policy of the Government, and indeed I should imagine the hope of hon. Members on these benches, that the time will come when the industry will not be in need of subsidies. But that is a long way off yet.
It is true to say that no responsible owner would wish the subsidy scheme to benefit him if he were making a profit, but it was expected that when this sum of £7,500,000 was fixed in 1953, there would be a stabilisation of prices. It was never dreamed at that time that there would be a continual increase in the cost of running these vessels. It was envisaged then that by 1958 the Scheme would run down and the subsidies would taper off.
The reverse process has taken place. Instead of prices falling, they have continued to rise. In spite of all the claims of the Tories, particularly at Election time, that everything would come down in price, the opposite has happened, and they have failed lamentably to keep that promise. We can only approve the Order to increase the sum available for subsidies in the hope that costs will fall before the terminal point is reached. If that happy event does not occur in 1958, I am sure that we shall not oppose anything that the Government might do to continue the subsidy arrangements, so long as they are proved to be necessary. Broadly speaking, our policy will be to hope that the industry will be able to stabilise itself, to make both ends meet and, indeed, to show a substantial return.
With regard to the allocation of grants for the provision of new vessels and for the conversion from steam to oil, we welcome the increase in the maximum from £25,000 to £30,000 per vessel. But that does not march in step with the cost


of new vessels. A vessel which cost £50,000 a few years ago, just when the scheme was being thought of, might cost today, when it is fitted, anything from £70,000 to £80,000. That is a tremendous increase. Although I can see that the object or hope of the Minister is that the ratio shall remain the same, it does in fact place a very heavy burden on the small man, particularly in raising the rest of the capital in order to build new vessels.
We are very much in danger of finding a situation developing when the small man will be thrown out of business; he will not be able to raise the capital, and the fleets will more and more pass into big congregations of large owners who can readily produce the capital. That sort of thing is very much in evidence today, I am afraid; the small one-vessel owner is going out, and he is being bought up by the bigger combines. I do not know, but I should have thought that that was very much against the interests of the fleet; it removes that personal interest of a man who has inherited or built up a long tradition of the sea, and the industry passes into the hands of big financial interests rather than the hands of real fishermen who probably have a long history in catching.
The rise of £3,000 in the grant for herring drifters is on the same lines, except that there the rise is rather more generous; it is 25 per cent. as compared with 20 per cent. for trawlers. It will still be very difficult indeed for the small drifter owner to provide capital out of his own resources when he wants to get new vessels.
We willingly concede that, as regards the near and middle water vessels, the Minister has taken a drastic step. He has done that in consultation with the interests involved, though not with hon. Members who have the interests of the fishing industry at heart. The most important change, as he has said, is the elimination of the grant per stone for near and middle water vessels, while maintaining the 8d. a stone for gutted fish for the inshore fishers. No doubt our friends who are interested in inshore fishing will have something to say about that. It is obvious that the same considerations of rising costs operate for the inshore fishing vessels as well as for the sea drifters, steam trawlers or oil burning

vessels. It seems to me very invidious that that class should be singled out for no improvement in their subsidies, while other classes are receiving consideration. No doubt other speakers will develop that point.
There is one point which I do not think the Minister mentioned, but which we welcome, namely, that it is now arranged for subsidies to run for one year instead of for a period of six months. That makes for stabilisation and a little more security for fishing interests. Six months is much too short a period. I have always thought it very bad that it has been necessary to come to the House every six months and put the industry in a ferment when this matter has to be dealt with. It does undoubtedly get into a ferment when there is any talk of a different rate of subsidy or grants. Such a thing is unsettling to the industry; it should be able to look ahead.
It is fair to say that the Scheme is the result of an examination of trading results. I understand that the Scheme was formulated after going very carefully into trading results over a long period, and a general rule was made. But there is a danger there, because it is quite possible, when making a general survey of an industry or part of an industry, that there are portions of it, single ports for instance, which, owing to natural circumstances, have not been able to do very well.
I hope that if this system of surveying the operations of the industry is to be adopted next year, those who have been found to be less advantageously treated through the general application of this rate of subsidy will be put in a better position in future years, that is to say, that the rate of subsidy will be raised in respect of their efforts. I hope that now the new kind of calculation has been introduced, any anomalies due to fortuitous circumstances will be rectified when the Scheme is re-examined next year.
The Minister has mentioned the new rates of subsidy in which the crews and officers participate. I am wondering whether he has had as close consultation with those representing their interests as he has had with the fishing owners. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to reassure us that he has been in the closest consultation with the unions


representing the crews and the federations representing the officers. It would be most invidious if this Scheme were accepted here tonight and we had no assurance that anybody other than owners had been in the picture throughout the negotiations.
I must say we are left rather with the impression, in spite of all the good intentions of the Minister in this respect, that the smaller vessels will, after all, be the worse off; I am referring now not to the inshore vessels but to the smaller vessels in the near and middle waters group. I hope that they will not suffer as much as some of us think they will.
We feel that the most undesirable part of the proposals, in spite of the explanation which the Minister has given, is the encouragement given for maintaining old steam trawlers at sea. I do not know how far I carry all my hon. Friends with me in this matter. I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) here, and the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) sitting opposite. Both my hon. and learned Friend and the noble Lady may not agree with me when I say that it seems incomprehensible that, while we preach a doctrine of conversion and modernisation of our fleets, we give the greatest incentive to obsolete vessels being kept at sea.
It is very discouraging to those in many ports who adopt a forward policy, to find that the biggest grants are given to the most inefficient vessels. The Minister said that it is important to keep them at sea. It seems to me that he will keep them at sea for a very long time if he pays them £20 a day to stay at sea. If I were an owner, I should not see any inducement to order a new, modern trawler if I were being given £20 a day to keep the old one in commission. That seems to be a very grave anomaly.
I must say that, in spite of the criticisms and harsh things one has to say, we welcome the Schemes as far as they go, and we wish them to operate successfully. We particularly welcome the announcement of the Minister that in the near future he will introduce legislation in regard to conversion. This is a most important matter, I think, and I hope that he will go well ahead with

that and give substantial encouragement. Rather than give owners £20 a day to keep these old vessels at sea, he should give them £20 a day to take them into dry dock, take out the old engines and have new ones put in. That is the best incentive that we could have.
I am sure that we all want to take this industry out of politics. In spite of the one or two gibes which I have, perhaps, made tonight, we feel that the industry is well above the party political level. We want it to prosper. It is one of our oldest industries, an industry of which we are all very proud, particularly those of us who work and live among those grand people who go to sea in order that we may enjoy the fruits of their labours.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Duthie: I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) that it is a great pity that we are dependent upon occasions such as this to discuss the fishing industry. There is no reason, it seems to those of us who have the honour to represent constituencies with fishing interests, why the fishing industry should not claim at least one day a year of the time of the House for the discussion of the industry's manifold facets.
I also join with the hon. Member in his commendation of the felicitous manner in which my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced the Schemes and the Order, but I must confess to acute disappointment at the way in which this matter has been handled. In January, my right hon. Friend promised us a complete survey of the whole financial situation affecting the fishing industry. The examination and analysis have been made, and there have been the most amazing deductions therefrom.
I should like to direct the attention of the House particularly to the position of the inshore fishing industry, for it is that section which I have the honour to represent. I appreciate the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend to the Scottish inshore industry for the manner in which it came forward and supplied the necessary information for the inquiry. The fullest co-operation in furnishing figures was given by the representative bodies in Scotland. That information, however, was forthcoming largely in respect of the


most successful vessels, for it was their owners who were the best equipped and organised to furnish the information.
The Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association covers the inshore fishing activities of the north-east of Scotland. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and those associated with him would agree that it is one of the best organised and most efficient trade bodies in the country. At the instigation of this Association its members furnished comprehensive information of the prevailing conditions in the inshore fishing industry of north-east Scotland.
The Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association received the new subsidy proposals in a letter from the Scottish Home Department dated 2nd May, accompanied by an analysis of the figures which had been produced throughout Scotland. I must agree with the Association in expressing surprise at the somewhat amazing deductions which have been drawn from the figures. The letter to the Association also said that before any action was taken,
the Department would be glad to receive as soon as possible any comments which your Association may wish to make on the figures in the enclosed statements. …
Those comments were duly made, and I wish to indicate some of the points arising from the analysis.
Two hundred and eighty-six vessels of from 40 to 70 ft. in length were in the survey and their accounts forthcoming. The average subsidy paid to each of these vessels was £749 1s. for 1955. The average profit in respect of each vessel was £388 4s., which means that had there been no subsidy, each vessel would have shown a loss of £361 on the year's working, instead of a profit. This figure of profit, incidentally, represents rather less than 4 per cent. on the capital value of the vessel.
The analysis also shows that the labour share per man per week for the 286 vessels was £10·96. Then comes the astonishing comment:
In the above figures, no allowance is made for repayments, etc., of gear and boat loans.
There has, of course, been a succession of increases in interest rates during the same period. These matters are of the utmost importance in a debate of this kind.
As for the smaller boats of up to 40 ft. in length, returns were rendered in respect of 104 vessels. The average subsidy was £217 14s. but the average net profit was only £52 12s. Again, had there been no subsidy, there would have been a material loss. The labour share was £9 6s. a week, and again no allowance was made for repayments for gear or boat loans.
The reply of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association was subscribed to by the other fishing bodies in Scotland, including the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association. In dealing with wages, the Association said to the Scottish Home Department:
It should be observed that whereas the labour share per man per week is £10·96 for vessels between 40 and 70 ft. in length for 39 working weeks, and is £9·3 for approximately 38 working weeks in the case of vessels up to 40 ft. in length, these earnings supplemented by unemployment benefit for the remainder of the year, namely, 13 weeks in the former case and 14 weeks in the latter, are required to sustain the hired man and his family for a whole year. It is submitted that this results in his average weekly wage spread over 52 weeks being reduced, on the foregoing figures, from £10·96 to £8 10s. in the one case and from £9·3 to approximately £7 in the other.
When they are working, these men put in 80 hours a week. It is no fault of theirs that they are ashore for thirteen weeks in the year. Anyone conversant with the fishing industry knows that that time is necessary for the rehabilitation of vessels and gear. When the inshore vessels are at sea, the diesel engine is virtually working from the beginning of the week until the weekend and this period of rehabilitation, therefore, is necessary.
The analysis of figures, it should be pointed out, was produced on the basis of a subsidy of 10d. per stone, whereas in 1956 the subsidy rate is down to 8d. per stone. The analysis, therefore, does not accord with the present situation. In addition, it has been pointed out to the Department that there have been material increases in the cost of all the industry's outgoings, notably on ancillary equipment, including manila ropes, nets, rubber sea boots, maintenance costs and fuel oil. There is now also the necessary provision of life-saving rafts aboard vessels, costing up to £200 each. All these charges have to be found from earnings. Therefore, I say that the figures which were produced


as a result of that inquiry have not been properly interpreted in the making of this new proposal.
A meeting took place at the Department on 14th May, and there were present representatives of the Scottish Home Department, the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association, the Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association, the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the White Fish Authority, all bodies representative of the inshore fishing industry of Scotland. All those fishermen's bodies reinforced the submissions which had been made in the letter to which I have referred and which was sent to the Department by the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association.
It is said that in the first six months of this year there was an increase in earnings compared with those of the first six months of 1955. That is perfectly true, but it must be borne in mind that the inshore fishermen of Scotland are making every possible effort to catch fish in all kinds of conditions, even in unwarrantable conditions. I have seen them go to sea in weather in which it is dangerous to put to sea, but they have to earn their daily bread. This decreased subsidy is, I should say, a most unfair incentive to go fishing in weather which is far from suitable.
It is quite wrong to assess a year's operations on what happens in the first six months of that year. My right hon. Friend compared 1955 with 1954, and I must correct him. It may be that, considering the fishing industry as a whole, 1955 showed a slight improvement over 1954, but for the Scottish inshore fishing industry 1955 did not turn out as well as 1954. It is quite true that the first nine months of 1955 were better than the first nine months of 1954, but when the figures were added up at the end of the twelve months, 1955 was found to have been not such a profitable year for the fishing industry in Scotland as 1954 had been. Yet it was upon the 1955 figures, or what were alleged to have been the 1955 figures, that the subsidy was reduced from 10d. a stone to 8d. a stone.
While it is true that landings have been better this year up to now than they were in 1955 it has to be remembered that

we have ahead of us, as everyone knows who is associated with the fishing industry, a period of low prices. Look at what is happening at the fishing ports. Fish is going for processing. Look what happened at the main trawler ports yesterday. Fish went for fish meal. The weather is against the trade at the present time, and at this time of the year people change their domestic habits, for the holiday season is on, and not much fish is bought at holiday resorts. Therefore, the fish is going for fish meal, and that is depressing the prices on the quaysides. That ought to have been taken into account in the estimate of what is equitable assistance for the fisherman today.
A subsidy is absolutely essential. If fish were offered in the market at its value, people simply would not buy it, and the industry would be hamstrung for lack of any market whatsoever. Thus the subsidy is essential, and there was no justification for the reduction in the subsidy in January: none at all. It is pertinent to ask now a question which is being very urgently asked in the industry; is this hold-up in the subsidy really the result of the inquiry or is it an instance of Treasury interference? I feel very strongly that it must be the latter. If it is not, it means that in the Department there is the self-same guesswork going on that nearly wrecked the industry when the subsidy was reduced from 10d. to 6d. Any guesswork of that kind, affecting a basic industry, must be condemned by the House.
I accept the inshore subsidy, but I accept it under protest. I know that our inshore fishermen will do their utmost to make a living for themselves, no matter what the conditions are, but in reducing subsidies one can at length reach the point beyond which it is destructively imprudent to go, and I think that that point has been reached now. I repeat that I accept the subsidy under protest, and I look forward with a great deal of hope to the new legislation coming along for a long-term subsidy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will keep this present subsidy closely under review, and that if it is found that the figure is inadequate the necessary adjustment will be made.
As one who is interested in all phases of the fishing industry I should say something about the anomalies in the trawler subsidy. It is quite true that it would be


a bad thing to drive the coalburning trawlers, no matter how obsolescent they may be, off the seas at the present time. That would create a good deal of unemployment, which the industry cannot bear. If we did that we should lose from the industry some magnificent men whom we can ill spare, who earn their livelihood at sea. Once men leave the sea, they do not return to it. That has been found to be almost invariably true. Yet I do not blame those at the progressive ports for feeling that they are being let down by this concentration of aid on coal burning vessels, leaving the modernised fleets on their own. I sympathise with those associated with ports like Fleetwood and Lowestoft, which have extremely progressive, modern fleets, for feeling that they are being somewhat let down.
I should have thought that rising costs, which are being experienced all round, would have so weighed upon the Ministerial mind that at least the small subsidies which at present obtain would have been allowed to continue. I am referring particularly to the 130 ft. and 140 ft. vessels, which are ideal craft, and which should be encouraged in every possible way. The White Fish Subsidy (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order is absolutely essential, as are also the new White Fish Subsidy Scheme and the grants for the fishing vessels and their engines in both the white fish and herring fishing industries. They are splendid, and are long overdue.
I have a question to ask about raising the limit from £12,000 to £15,000. Is the grant payable retrospectively? Is it to help those people who have had to pay increased prices on a new vessel? Will it apply to vessels on which £15,000, and sometimes more, has already been spent? I should like some elucidation of that matter.
It is a pity that we have to depend on occasions such as this to air our views and grievances, such as they are, about this extremely important industry. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his promise of new legislation for a longer-term subsidy, and particularly for the promise that something will be done to assist the transition from coal to oil burning. There, indeed, is a transition of first-rate importance for the fishing industry, and the sooner it is speeded up the better for all concerned.
I will not retract one word that I have said about the position of the inshore fishing industry. We shall endeavour to do our utmost to make do with this subsidy, and we shall keep the Minister fully informed should the necessity arise for any change.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) in the debate, and I propose to return a little later to the latter part of his speech. I was a little surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) making a little attack on the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman does not require my defence in any way, but when he sat on the back benches in opposition he used to make very vigorous speeches on the fishing industry. It is true that since he became a Minister he has mellowed somewhat.
I believe I have said before that the Joint Under-Secretary, when Labour were the Government of the day, complained about the Government driving the herring out of the Forth. He seemed to think that their disappearance was the responsibility of the Government, and he made vigorous speeches about it. Since the Tories have come to office and the hon. Gentleman has become responsible for this part of the industry, the herring has not come back to the Forth, surprising though that may be. However, the hon. Gentleman has mellowed and I do not want to be critical this evening; I want to be a little benevolent about what is going on.
The proposals before us are undoubtedly a great improvement on the first proposals which the Minister introduced and then withdrew. The right hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to the men engaged in the fishing industry when he spoke about the anomaly of those who receive a share of the fishing profits and, because of that share, the Government subsidy has to be increased, the men then collecting part of that subsidy and thus increasing their earnings and increasing costs. The right hon. Gentleman regarded that as an anomaly but, with all respect to him, the Government have been doing that ever since they came to power.
The hon. Member for Banff mentioned interest rates, but he did not care to


expound that subject more fully. A considerable part of the annual cost of building a craft is the interest charged on the borrowed money. Since the Government came to power, interest rates have gone up from 3½ per cent. to 5¼ per cent. The fishermen have to face this added interest charge every year. At present, the charges on a £60,000 loan account for £3,000 a year, or £60 a week. That is what the fishermen have to pay to meet the interest charges, without repayment of capital Therefore, as the Government push up the interest rates, they have to do something with the subsidy to meet the increased costs which they themselves have imposed.
As to the new grants under the present proposals, I wonder whether the Minister, when he was talking about the original £9 million, which could be increased to £10 million, really appreciated the way in which prices have risen during the past few years. I have a constituent who wants to know whether it would be possible to make these new grants retrospective. He first ordered a vessel in October, 1954. The tender at that date was £99,500, which just came within the grant limit of costs up to £100,000. A tender for a second vessel which was lodged in August, 1955, had moved up over ten months by £7,000 to a total of £106,500.
The first vessel has now been delivered. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland told me that he had been along to see it and that he thought it was a first-class job. When the bill came, however, it was not for £99,500 but for £116,000. Therefore, this owner has to find an extra £16,500 over and above the original tender. It is true that he will have certain loans at the new interest rate of 5¼ per cent., but he may be driven to the banks and the open market to meet these extra charges, and he has no assurance that he can obtain the money even at that interest rate.
The tender for the second vessel was £106,500, but now, even before the keel has been laid, this man has received an intimation from the builder that the vessel will cost a further 11 per cent. It is no use this, or any other Government, saying to people in industry that they must go ahead and modernise and build new boats. They cannot do it in these conditions. This man is not a large owner, but he has tremendous initiative, enter-

prise and energy. However, he must face the hard facts of the situation. He has said to me, "I am willing to reinvest anything I make out of my industry and put it into modernisation and creating a new fleet and providing the best conditions for the men who sail my vessels, but if these things are to go and we are to have no further assistance, it will be impossible."
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be a little more explicit when he replies to the debate. Surely, when we have reached a position in which even before the keel has been laid charges go up, it will be possible under these new proposals to provide added assistance to the owners so that when the boat has not begun to be built they can qualify for the new grant. I think it is fair to ask that. I hope the Government will be generous enough to accept that proposal, otherwise it will be impossible for these individual owners to undertake the job.
My constituent has always had another complaint. It is that when an order for a new boat is placed, the owner must put down 15 per cent. of the cost on the day he orders. He therefore has to lie out of that money until he gets delivery of the boat and he is able to earn it. It means that he has to lie out of it for a considerable period of time. Even if we accept the Minister's statement that the delay is due to the limitation on the yards, which cannot build more and build quicker, surely all the responsibility should not be placed on the shoulders of the man who has shown initiative. The owner is also rather resentful of the fact that those who do not build a new fleet do substantially better out of the subsidy. If my constituent, Mr. Croan, can use his initiative in this way, I am convinced that owners in other ports could do a similar job if they put their minds to it. So I do not think that the owners should be penalised in this way.
Now I come to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and by the hon. Member for Banff. Undoubtedly the conversion of coalburning trawlers to oil fuel is an important matter for the industry. I have been in correspondence with the Scottish Office about this. A constituent of mine who is interested wrote to me about it, and I wrote to the Secretary of State for


Scotland and received a reply from him only this morning. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not mind if I use it now. He wrote:
You wrote to me on 25th June, enclosing a letter from Mr. Carnie"—
who is one of my constituents—
in which he asks when the Government is likely to give a decision on grants for the conversion of coal-burning trawlers to oil fuel. We have this question very much in mind, and I realise that Granton owners in particular are interested in the outcome. I understand that Mr. Carnie was at the recent meeting in London when the white fish subsidy proposals were discussed with the trawler owners, and that he had an opportunity of putting his point about conversion and retrospective legislation.
That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries then explained that the Government wished to meet the views of the White Fish Authority and the owners on this point, but that there were legislative difficulties, which he hoped the owners would recognise, both as regards the necessary amendment of the 1953 Act and as regards making it retrospective. I am sorry I cannot say more at the moment but I hope we shall be able to make a statement soon.
It may be asked why I should raise this matter again tonight in view of that letter. I only do so because it is pertinent to this debate. I do not say that I was terribly disappointed that in opening this debate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not go further this evening than the Secretary of State for Scotland went this morning. However, I was a little disappointed, because on the day before the previous debate, when the new subsidy proposals were first published, I asked the Secretary of State if he had considered the proposals and protests of the fishing industry of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said he had done so and assured me that nothing could be done in the matter and that not another penny could be got out of the Government. Then, less than twenty-four hours later, the right hon. Gentleman came along with completely new proposals and a lot more money. So hon. Members will understand that I want to be up to date in this matter as well, and I thought that the Minister would have a later statement to make some eight hours later.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not gone any further than his right hon. Friend. I want him to realise

that this is extremely important. We certainly want a speedy decision, but we want a good one when it is made. Again, however, there is reiterated in this proposal the question of retrospective payment. That is important, because it is a little annoying for those who have shown initiative to find that the fellow who has waited gets considerably more than they do. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Under-Secretary will reply to this point.
I have two further points to make. The first is the question of repayment of loans already received. In introducing his proposals this afternoon, the Minister was not quite accurate in his summary of new loans against old, for boats built between 1947 and 1952 and between 1952 and the present date. It was not a complete summary, because in the years immediately following the war there were a considerable number of conversions from old naval boats. There was a scramble for these because every one wanted a certain type of engine. I suppose, like the B.B.C., I am not allowed to advertise, but I can say that this engine was in such great demand that certain owners had to accept alternative types.
I have corresponded with the Secretary of State and with the White Fish Authority for a considerable time about two constituents of mine who were given this type of engine. Everybody admits that they have worked night and day, week in and week out, year in and year out. But, in spite of their best endeavours, the venture has failed because of the bad engine with which they were supplied, and my constituents have lost all that they put into the boat. Indeed, they have not earned much to keep them going since that date, and despite the fact that the boat has been sold, the Authority still wants them to pay a considerable sum. As I told the Joint Under-Secretary of State in the previous debate, my constituents simply cannot pay. This hunt ought to be abandoned, because they worked tremendously hard to try to make the boat pay. I think the Government ought to take a reasonable and humane view of these things, and perhaps at the conclusion of this debate I shall be told that the debt has been completely written off.
The hon. Member for Banff said that one of the needs of the industry was for the various sections to hammer out a


policy. The complaint in my constituency is that there are far too many changes made in the top ranks of the White Fish Authority. The chairmanship is changing continually. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Indeed it is; we have had three changes in recent years, which prevents continuity of service. My constituents say that it would be much better if a much younger man had been appointed recently than was selected, so that he could give expectation of years of service, which is what the industry needs.
Many and complicated are its difficulties. Each and all of us want it to be successful. I hope that the proposals put before us tonight will help to put the industry in that condition, but the points I have raised are ones which concern the industry greatly, and I would be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary would give us a specific reply to them when he winds up the debate.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Richard Stanley: I find myself very much in agreement with what has been said already in this debate so clearly, namely, that most of us are disappointed with the latest Scheme of the Minister. Certainly it has not been beneficial to Fleetwood, as I will explain later. However, I suppose we ought to be pleased when we get a few crumbs from the Treasury, and so we ought to be happy about receiving anything extra.
One of the worries of the fishing people in Lancashire is that the Scotsmen always seem to beat the English when it comes to arguing with the Minister about fish. We are completely defeated every time, and the rout last time was one of the worst defeats which England has suffered. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will use his influence with the Scottish Office to see that we get a fair crack of the whip.
I have many times spoken about Fleetwood's difficult position. It is on a different coast from the main industry. It is not a very big port. It is very difficult to make the industry really work there. The people have spent a lot of money in getting a new fleet, and they feel very disappointed about the present treatment. My right hon. Friend has probably noticed that the Financial

Times gave the Fleetwood people a good write-up this morning, printing their letter of protest and making reference to it.
These people feel that they have done to the best of their ability what the Minister asked them to do. They started building new vessels and took advantage of the subsidy scheme, and things began to look much better, but now they have the feeling that the Minister has let them down and has not considered their difficulties. They feel that the subsidy is to meet increased costs, and they cannot understand why it should be thought that increased costs do not apply in their case when they do to everyone else in the industry.
We had hoped that everyone would carry on building new fishing fleets, for they would be not only more economical to run but very much better in every way for the comfort of the crews. To do so takes a terrific amount of money, however, and, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) said, the high interest rates make it very difficult for smaller firms to build new vessels. I hope that those who have got them will not suffer too much because the subsidy is not coming their way.
I imagine that when my right hon. Friend was considering the subsidy he used the 1955 figures as a basis, for there was nothing else that he could use. I am sure we should not have had the same Scheme if he could have known the 1956 figures, for they present a very different picture. The people in Fleetwood have assured me that the position is not too good. Their costs have risen considerably, and the fact that they are losing the subsidy will mean that they will be in a very difficult position.
Although I criticise the Scheme, it is good that the Minister has kept up the subsidy on steam so that the catching power of the fleet does not fall. If that declined, it would be disastrous. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is extraordinary to bolster up the old coal burning trawlers in this manner without helping the diesel vessels. The figures make extraordinary reading. A steam trawler of between 120 ft. and 130 ft. will get £19 10s. per day; a steam trawler of between 130 ft. and 140 ft. will get £22 per day; a diesel trawler of between 120 ft. and 130 ft., which used to get £3 1s. per day, will get £2 per day; and


a diesel trawler of between 130 ft. and 140 ft., which used to get £3 8s. per day, will now get nothing at all. Surely my right hon. Friend cannot mean that steam should have this subsidy and oil should have none at all when the men have carried out what he particularly asked them to do?
I hope there will be a chance of my right hon. Friend being able to do something about this matter in the near future. It is probably too difficult and too late for him to do anything tonight, but when he brings forward his new legislation or the subject arises again in some other form, I hope he will look at the case of those who have spent their money—wisely, we hope—so that they will be able to get a fair return for the money and for their work.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In the light of today's inflation, the high cost of building, operating and repairing ships, and the high cost of gear, I submit that the Schemes are trivial when compared with the needs of the fishing industry. I was amused when my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) spoke about the owner of a fishing vessel putting his ship in dock to get a new engine. How could he get a new engine in the light of present costs with such a mean, miserable, niggardly grant? The grants are out of all proportion to the needs of the situation; they should be much larger. Consequently, I invite the Minister to do what he did on a former occasion, take back these Instruments and produce improved Instruments which are more generous and more comparable with the needs of the fishing industry.
It is necessary to consider these Schemes from the viewpoints of all elements in the industry—officers, crews, owners, workers in the fishmarkets and those who transport fish. Unless these workers are fairly and justly treated, the industry will not prosper. These niggardly schemes will not treat them fairly; having regard to the cost of living and inflation, the schemes do not permit the workers to maintain and develop their living standards as they ought to be maintained and developed.
It was because the industry was not prospering that the series of Statutes

under which these Instruments are made was passed. Those Statutes were comprehensive and wide. They have never been fully implemented, and they are certainly not fully implemented by these Instruments. These Schemes will not do the job which was contemplated by the Statutes. They seem to have been drafted in vacuo without proper relation to the needs of the situation; this is entirely wrong. They should have been drafted having regard to inflation, the cost of building and repairing ships, and the cost of gear; but they are not.
It is necessary to consider not only the classes of persons I have mentioned but the terms of the relevant Statutes and the earlier Statutory Instruments. I am willing to concede that the earlier Statutory Instruments were, at the time they were passed, adequate to their tasks, but economic and financial conditions have so changed that a new view should be taken of them to bring them into line with the needs of today's situation.
We judge these Instruments by asking ourselves: Are they suitable and effective for their purposes today? Are they of the kind contemplated by the Statutes? The Instruments fall according to those tests. They are inadequate to the purpose. They should be taken back and reviewed. Perhaps that is why the Statutory Instruments are rushed upon the House at the last moment. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) made that point. He said that there should be a fisheries debate at least once a year. I would go further and say that there should be a separate and independent Minister of Fisheries of Cabinet rank who could see that the needs of the fishing industry were frequently brought before the House and were envisaged in a large and comprehensive way, not only once a year but more frequently.
The White Fish and Herring Industry Act, 1953, was designed, among other things, to provide for the payment of grants in respect of the acquisition of new vessels and engines for use in the white fish and herring industry and for a subsidy in respect of white fish. Section 5 of that Act, under which these Instruments were made, was designed, among other things, to assist in
… promoting the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish …


and it provided for the making of Schemes for this purpose. Those are comprehensive words, and that Act was a comprehensive Act; but these Schemes are not comprehensive: they are outmoded, out of date, slavishly copying earlier Schemes in the same series and attempting to apply in effect the earlier Schemes to conditions which today are quite different having regard to inflation.
The evil which was contemplated by that Statute and by the earlier Schemes is a continuing evil and a developing one, and it is rather worse today than it was when that Statute was passed. The present Secretary of State for Scotland, in his speech on the Second Reading of that Bill, when recommending the Bill, used these words on the 20th January, 1953:
The need for extensive new building for the near and middle-water fleets is well known. Indeed, as far back as 1936 the Sea Fish Commission, in the Report known as the Duncan Report, drew attention to the age and obsolescence of the fleets, and since then, of course, due to inability to build during the war years, this problem has naturally increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 51–2.]
It is a continuous problem, it is an increasing problem, and it has not been solved by the earlier Statutory Instruments and, a fortiori, will not be solved by the present Statutory Instrument under the different and more stringent conditions of today.
In order to show that it is a continuing and increasing problem, I quote a Question which I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland so far back as 13th December, 1955. That Question was based upon the Report of the Duncan Committee. I asked:
If his attention has been drawn to paragraphs 39 and 40 of the latest report of the White Fish Authority deploring the old age of the Aberdeen trawling fleet and discussing the legal difficulties in the way of carrying out their proposal to build and operate trawlers themselves arising out of the provisions of the Sea Fish Industry Act; and if he will take steps to secure to the Authority the fuller powers necessary to enable them to operate fishing vessels permanently.
The House will see that the Question was based upon the Report of the White Fish Authority itself deploring the old age of the fishing fleet and asking that it should be empowered to build and operate fishing fleets itself—a thing that I favour myself, because I think that it

would be a very good thing if the White Fish Authority had the power to build and operate its own fleets in competition with the fleets of private owners and private companies in order to keep these latter fleets up to standard in structure, operation and management. I ask the House to listen to the Answer which the Secretary of State gave to that Question. He said:
I share the Authority's concern at the slow progress in modernising the Aberdeen trawler fleet. The Authority have not submitted to the Government any proposal that they should build and operate trawlers themselves. Such a proposal would involve difficulties quite apart from the absence of statutory powers. I am glad to report, however, that grants for seven new trawlers have recently been approved, making a total of thirteen for the port."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 155.]
The problem still remains. That was a mere tinkering with the problem. The problem still remains, and these trivial Statutory Instruments, these meagre and ungenerous Statutory Instruments, will not give the ship owners the power to do that which the Statute itself contemplated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that the problem still remains, but I do not think that it can be rectified under these Instruments.

Mr. Hughes: All these Statutory Instruments are being taken together, Sir Charles, and I am dealing with the one which provides grants for the rebuilding and repair of trawlers—the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme, 1956.
These words, in my submission, indicate the problems in Aberdeen, and I speak of Aberdeen because I am most familiar with that city and the problems there; but similar problems are to be found in other fishing ports. I submit that these Statutory Instruments will not solve them. I do not admit for a moment that these Schemes are sufficient, comprehensive, far-reaching or imaginative. They tinker with certain aspects of a vast and complex problem which some day must be dealt with in the comprehensive way in which King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I dealt with the Navy when they laid the foundations of the British Navy, which is so perfect an instrument today.

Mr. Ede: The Royal Navy; not the British Navy.

Mr. Hughes: I accept, having regard to the fact that the Navy was founded by


those two Sovereigns, that it is the Royal Navy, but nevertheless it is also the British Navy. That interjection does not assist the serious argument which I am addressing to the House with regard to the fishing fleet. That great change improved the quality of the naval ships, the status of the officers and crews, the pay and amenities for their own and the public good. Something other than meagre Statutory Instruments are required in order to place the fishing fleets of this country upon a proper basis. The provisions of these Statutory Instruments do not do it. So I end as I began by inviting the Minister, on the precedent that he created a year ago, to take back these wretched Statutory Instruments and produce better and more effective ones, more suitable in this period of inflation for dealing with the problems to which I have referred.

7.50 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) is clearly out of tune with the rest of the House, because every single Member who has spoken, except the Minister himself, has regretted the fact that the coal-burning vessels of the port of Aberdeen should have such an increased subsidy, and yet the hon. and learned Member is anxious that the subsidy should be even greater. We can conclude only that he wishes to keep these elderly vessels at sea even longer than at present.
I must welcome the fact that we have an increased subsidy which for the largest boats will amount to about £22, but I have a certain sympathy with those hon. Members who have said that that means that we shall keep an ageing fleet at sea longer than necessary. It would be a very great mistake to withdraw the subsidies too rudely, because we should then have an all-out scrapping programme. The recommendation of both the White Fish Authority and of the McColl Report on the Port of Aberdeen that we should have a staggered programme of scrapping at the rate of two old vessels to one new vessel built. We should otherwise obviously be in great danger of a high level of unemployment in the Port of Aberdeen.
On the other hand, one does not wish to support inefficiency, but building does take time. We must recall what has been

said about the building programme in Aberdeen by the past chairman of the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority, Captain Allan. He said that there was every reason to expect a total of 27 new vessels in the Port of Aberdeen and eight more on long-term order. Now, of course, certain trawlers have gone out of service. We still have about 173 in the port today and the same amount of fish is still being landed.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the ratio being maintained? The hon. Lady mentioned one new trawler in lieu of two old ones. Is that happening at the moment?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I should think that with the rate of building—which, as I said, takes time—that is happening. There was some concern in the port about three or four months ago that the rate of scrapping was too fast.
Naturally I should like to see even more orders for new boats, but the Minister himself earlier this year said, in answer to Questions in the House, that the yards were full for two or three years. That is despite the cost of building today, which naturally falls very hardly on the small owners. I am in considerable sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), because it seems that with the high cost of building today, more and more boats will be built by an amalgamation of companies.
I very much welcome the Scheme which provides for increased grants for building, and I particularly welcome the legislation which we are to have in the future dealing with conversion from coal to oil burning. If that takes place on any scale, Aberdeen should look into accommodation facilities for large tankers so that we can become a major installation port. We should then be able to have preferential prices for our oil, which is a very important factor to us, together with transport costs on the marketing side.
I should like to say something about the new Scheme for flat payment. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), who spoke in his usual knowledgeable way, would be content with this new Scheme, because on the last occasion when he addressed the House on this subject he drew attention to the fact that vessels used to get the subsidy when they were


out of the port of Aberdeen, whether at sea, or sheltering in harbour. This new grant is payable to ships only when they are actually at sea.
However, there are certain dangers in this flat payment. I informed the Joint Under-Secretary that I hoped to raise this point and I trust that it will be possible to have some reply. We have noticed that there are considerable problems when a boat remains at sea until midnight. Immediately after midnight it qualifies for subsidy for the whole of the following day. We had one ship the "Sturdee" which ran aground and was a total loss at Aberdeen this year. At the court of inquiry the skipper was asked why the ship was dodging about in the bay. Sheriff Hamilton asked the skipper:
Do you seriously suggest that any man coming up to a port and is not to get in for five to six hours dodges about rather than drop his anchor to keep the ship in safety?
The skipper replied:
Yes. I can guarantee that sometimes you can see about sixty boats doing that. I agree that dropping the anchor is safer, but if the watch had been properly kept it would have been all right.
Qualifying for the flat payment of subsidy at midnight means that there are often collisions in the navigation channel coming into the Port of Aberdeen. The other day the Fiscal, Mr. Wilson H. Smith, said:
On Friday night in the port, there is a mad rush up the channel of trawlers which wait outside in the bay until nearly midnight. They time their entry for just after midnight, with a view to qualifying for a subsidy, and then race each other up the channel. Collisions are frequent, and there are even temporary groundings as a result.
Of course, the immediate result is that so far seven skippers have been prosecuted, and I understand that more cases are to come before the court.
The case of the "Sturdee" received considerable publicity in the Port of Aberdeen, and I asked the Joint Under-Secretary whether, when the subsidies which we are now discussing were reviewed, this question could be taken into account to see whether anything could be done to obviate what is obviously a great danger to the ships and to those who sail in them. It is quite clear that we cannot keep a watch on up to 60 vessels waiting in the harbour until midnight. A vessel could steam slowly in

order to reach harbour just after midnight. The Joint Under-Secretary replied in April:
… we proposed"—
that is, the Government—
last autumn to include in the subsidy scheme a rule that a vessel should not qualify for voyage subsidy in respect of any day in which it had spent less than six hours at sea. That would have meant in practice that to qualify for an extra day's subsidy a vessel would miss that day's market and consequently have to delay its departure for the next trip by a day.
In our discussions with the Aberdeen trawler owners it became clear that the enforcement of the six-hour rule would have seriously upset the effect which our subsidy proposals were intended to have, and we decided in the end not to proceed with it on the last occasion. The present subsidy scheme, however, expires on 31st July next, and in the forthcoming review of the subsidy scheme we shall consider again whether to introduce such a rule to operate after that date.
What exactly were all the difficulties which were borne in mind in deciding not to bring in a subsidy for which one would qualify only if one were six hours at sea? That is important, in view of the very wide publicity which has been given to this subject, and the concern felt among the general public in the City of Aberdeen.
I realise that this is a very difficult subject. On the whole, these measures are wise, because until the yards are able to take more orders and we are able to have a regular scrap-and-build programme, I think we can do nothing more than have the subsidies. I naturally welcome the generosity with which Scottish fishermen have been treated. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Stanley) talks about the routing of the Sassenachs, I would only say, as a Scottish Member, that I am very glad that the Scottish representatives of the fishing industry were able to secure that many of the demands which they put forward when they visited the Minister were met. Because these proposals will encourage the building of new boats, particularly in the major port of Aberdeen, I very much welcome them.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: We would all probably agree that my noble Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has made an extraordinarily good contribution to the debate, especially in connection with the safety of trawlers. I thought that the


keynote of the Minister's speech was that it was the duty of the Government to encourage an up-to-date and efficient industry, and it is to that end that I wish to address my remarks to him this evening.
Mention has been made of a new order, called the Merchant Shipping Life Saving Appliances (Amendment) Order, which is coming out, I believe, on 1st October, and which provides that boats of over 50 feet in length must be supplied with a life raft. In discussing this matter with me the other day the fishermen of Newlyn said that they felt a very real sense of grievance that boats of over 50 feet in length must provide these rafts whereas boats of less than that length need not. Some people who, with respect, do not know the conditions in that part of the country, may maintain that the smaller boats do not go far from the land. That is quite wrong; in many cases boats of less than 50 feet in length go considerable distances from the land, and when one takes into account the fact that a 20-seater life raft costs £258, a 10-seater, £172, and a six-seater £145, one sees that it is very unfair—quite apart from the safety aspect—that some should have to pay and some need not. The fishermen themselves take the view that the life of the man is important enough to make it necessary for everybody to provide these rafts.
I have been in communication today with a firm which makes these rafts. I am told that there is a very much cheaper and smaller raft at present under trial manufacture which should be ready to be tested and passed within a month. I am going to ask the Government to delay the implementation of their Order until 1st January, so that this smaller type of raft—which is a good deal cheaper; much less than £100, and suitable for the smaller craft covered by those Orders—can be passed by the Board of Trade, and so that, as from 1st January, it can be made compulsory for some form of raft of this sort to be carried in every fishing boat subject to these subsidy arrangements that goes to sea. Those who know the background to cases, such as that of the "Quiet Waters"—where all the evidence that is available after a collision consists of a few bits of driftwood—know that if life rafts had been fitted many

of these disasters would not have resulted in loss of life.
The Minister said that it was the aim of the Government to encourage an up-to-date fishing industry, and much has been said about the vexed question of coal burners. I know that conversion cannot take place at once, but I wonder whether the Government can indicate to the industry when the new conversion programme will be started. My right hon. Friend will no doubt remember that in a speech in December he said that some vessels in Milford Haven and, I believe, Lowestoft had been successfully converted, even though they were 30 years old. If further conversions of this sort could be carried out, they would help to remove the sense of grievance which exists on the part of other people, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Stanley).
If we are to have an up-to-date fleet, it must be properly protected. It is really no good having our Fishery Protection vessels engaged in a farce such as occurred in the Channel the other day. These protection vessels must have good sea-keeping qualities and also the speed to enable them to keep up with and catch foreign marauders. I do not think that any of us would wish to see a repetition of what happened the other day, when an unfortunate seaman was landed on the "Varne" Light Vessel. I want to know what is happening in this matter. I know that we have two modern vessels capable of speeds up to 20 knots, but I do not know what are their sea-keeping qualities. Are they able to keep at sea in the kind of conditions which they must be able to cope with if they are to do their job properly?
Again, if we are to have an up-to-date fleet, how are we getting on with our training of young men? What is happening to such schemes as that mentioned in the little yellow folder which I have in my hand, which refers to a training scheme in the south-west? I wonder how that is going on. Not very well, I fear. I want to suggest a possible way of attracting young men into this industry. Some of us were recently privileged to watch the start of a great sailing race to Lisbon. The intense interest taken in that race was demonstrated by the enormous numbers, not only of people


on shore, but of small craft milling about at the start. If we could have some sort of sail training ship, it would attract some of these young men far more than the idea of a few weeks in a technical college, which does not sound very romantic, and it would at least be some encouragement. Perhaps Her Majesty's Navy would not then have to borrow a sailing ship from a generous Greek shipowner in order to enter a race such as the recent race to Lisbon. We must do something to show young men that this is an industry worth entering.
We are faced with an extremely difficult problem. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree about that. I should like to know the average age of the share men in the inshore fishing industry. Is it going up or down? I think that it is going up. Secondly, how shall we replace our lifeboat crews? We must have men with local knowledge, especially on the coasts of West Cornwall. If we are to produce an up-to-date fishing organisation and a fishing fleet, what are we going to do about the question of nets and the size of their mesh?
The Fishing News of 14th October, last year said:
From inquiries made by us in British fishing ports sometimes patronised by French trawlers whose vessels openly exhibit nets below the size. The French trawlermen complained that they were not consulted by their authorities before the Convention was signed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Which of these Instruments deals with mesh size?

Mr. Howard: Two of them deal with grants for fishing vessels and engines—and with their gear. I hope that the Government can tell us something about this and still remain within the rules of order. This is only another example why some of us feel that it is monstrous not to have a proper debate ranging over all the complex problems of the fishing industry more than once a year.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That might be so, but this is not the proper debate.

Mr. Howard: Perhaps I may turn to grants for fishing vessels. Under the Statutory Instrument with which we have dealt, the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, I must ask once more—and I am afraid that it will again fall on deaf ears—why the shell fishermen

should not be included, because they have a very difficult time. Often they cannot preserve their fish by freezing, like some other fishermen can. I should have liked to have asked how things stood under the Convention about the possibility of discussions to establish base lines by agreement, what is the position of fish conservation policy, and many other things, but unfortunately I am not allowed to do so in this very narrow debate.
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the concession which he has made to long liners, because the job of a long liner, as those who have had anything to do with it know, is extremely hard and difficult, and any concessions which can be made to this particular type of fishing are very welcome.
Whilst saying that I am sorry to hear that certain sections of the inshore fishing industry of England did not submit figures, I think it is only fair to add that, from inquiries which I have made, I gather that all those asked in Newlyn and my part of West Cornwall gave figures and produced the samples required.
I was glad to hear the sympathetic way in which my right hon. Friend introduced this debate, and I feel sure that he will bear in mind from time to time the changing conditions in the industry and the complexities of the different areas. As we know, fish leave one part of the coast and go to another, which changes the whole economy from one place to another; one place does better, and another place does worse. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will always keep an open mind and will be ready to change his mind, if need be, in six months' time. Finally, I should like to ask for an answer about life rafts. If the Statutory Instrument is approved, does it mean that this will count for grant because this is a very expensive item?

8.12 p.m.

Major Sir Duncan McCallum: Like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), I want to make a plea for the provision of another occasion on which we could thoroughly debate the whole fishing industry. The kind of debate which we are having today is most unsatisfactory. I think it is high time we had another day for a complete debate on the fishing industry.
I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I want to


raise with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State two or three matters. One is in connection with the White Fish Subsidy Scheme. My right hon. Friend said that, in drawing up these Schemes, there had been consultation with the Clyde Fishermen's Association. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, I think I probably speak for the smallest type of fishing craft which have been mentioned today. I admit that these Schemes must be drawn up making proper allowance for the vast majority of the fishing industry, whereas I speak for only a small part of it on the West Coast of Scotland, the herring industry, which at present is going through very difficult times in that part of the West Coast. It is doing its best to carry out dual purpose fishing and to turn over to white fish. In that case, the boats, under the 40-foot classification, become eligible for this subsidy of 8d. I should like to point out to the Joint Under-Secretary that even the 8d. subsidy is a very minor assistance to these men, who are herring fishermen, not fishermen of white fish, but who go over to white fish in order to make some sort of living.
These Statutory Instruments give additional facilities for grants for the construction of boats and for new engines, but nothing is said about grants to help with new equipment. To turn over from the herring fishing, with the ring net boat, to white fish and the seine net method requires an important conversion which costs a lot of money. I submitted a case to the Ministry recently in which an active and young fisherman, full of enterprise and initiative, took it upon himself to convert his boat from herring fishing to dual-purpose fishing. He had obtained the boat in 1949 under the grant system and with the aid of loans.
Because of the unfortunate experience in herring fishing on the West Coast over the last five years, many of these West Coast herring fishermen have fallen behind in their repayments of their loans. They have even fallen behind in the payment of the interest. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) said almost exactly what I wanted to say. There are fishermen on the West Coast who are not in a position to pay the interest on the loan and not even in the position to pay the insurance on the boats. I have had cor-

respondence with the Secretary of State on the matter. We feel that the Herring Industry Board, in particular, might give more sympathetic consideration and arrange easier terms of payment to try to help these fishermen. They might also ease the demand for exact payment at the exact time.
I know that the Clyde Fishermen's Association has been in consultation with the Herring Industry Board to try to bring this about, but I had to report a case to the Secretary of State the other day in which, even while the negotiation was going on, the fisherman of one of the most modern boats was treated exactly as the hon. Member for Leith has said. He had been provided with an engine which was quite unsuitable and, at his own expense, without obtaining a grant, he fitted another and much more efficient engine. Even so, he has fallen a long way behind in his payments.
What happens? He is told that he is not credit-worthy and is not trying to pay. His boat is seized, and it is lying in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leith at the disposal of the Herring Industry Board. In fact, last week or the week before it was advertised for sale in the Fishing News.
This man made a mistake; he did not ask for a grant to change the engine but did it himself and paid out £3,000 or £4,000 in the last few years to make his boat more sea-worthy and more efficient in catching fish. His only reward is to be told that he is not credit-worthy and is not trying to repay the original loan on the boat. As a consequence, the boat has been seized. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell me that the Board has agreed to return the boat to him in order that he may continue fishing for white fish until such time as herring are available on the West Coast again.
These Statutory Instruments permit the payment of grants and loans, but it is impossible for these fishermen to take advantage of them. I know that my hon. Friend cannot make special terms for one particular section of the industry, but I think that he could request the Herring Industry Board—he cannot, of course, order it—to look with a more sympathetic eye on the difficulties being experienced at present by the West Coast herring fishermen, and particularly to those who


have had the initiative to turn to white fishing. They are very much in debt. So much so that they cannot see their way out. They all assure me that once the herrings come back or if good white fish catches are obtained in the Clyde area and on the West Coast they will be able to repay their loans and so demonstrate that the grants have not been wasted.
At present a magnificent boat is lying idle in harbour. It is said to have been sold to an Irish owner. It is a boat which has had much money spent on it and for which a large grant has been paid. It seems that so long as the Board gets the grant back they do not care what else happens. That is very harsh treatment for these men. It is driving first-class seafaring families out of the business because of existing physical conditions which are nobody's fault. If consideration could be given to them until better fishing comes along, I am quite sure that the Government and the Board will be repaid, and it will be seen that the grants legislated for have been well worth while.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Joint Under-Secretary of State will be glad to know that I do not propose to add very much to the many criticisms that have already been offered by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I think that he will find it a difficult enough job to reply to those without my adding much more, but I should mention one or two other matters to which I attach quite considerable importance.
We note with regret that these measures provide for no increase in the white fish subsidy for the near and middle water seine netters. We recall that only some months ago the Government proposed to reduce the subsidy from 10d. to 6d. per stone of gutted white fish landed from vessels of under 70 ft. in length. As a result of very strong representations they increased the figure to 8d., but even so it represented a reduction of 2d.
When commending the Schemes and the Order to the House today, the Minister said that he had made an effort to get the fullest possible information from the inshore fishing industry so as to be able to determine the subsidy. He said that the response from the industry in England and Wales have been very

poor. The industry had not yielded the information that was asked. He went out of his way to pay tribute to my fellow countrymen in the Scottish inshore industry for having been so much more forthcoming.
I regret, as did the Minister, that the industry in the South did not provide the information, but I also regret the decision that the Minister has taken in consequence, I believe, of the information which he received from the Scottish inshore fishermen. Several hon. Members have pleaded for these inshore men. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) quoted figures which must surely have shaken all hon. Members who heard them. The information given to me prior to this debate was that those men were probably earning about £8 a week, but I was not able to get the detailed information which the hon. Member gave us.
When one remembers that the returns to the owners that the hon. Member quoted were for 1955, when we had a subsidy of 10d. a stone, and recall that since then their costs have been going up and that this year they are operating on a subsidy of 8d. a stone—with, so far as I know, no compensating increase in the price which they are getting for the fish landed—we must be concerned for the well-being of these men.
According to the information which I have been able to gather on the subject, I am convinced that a restoration of the 10d. subsidy would have been fully justified. However, when we discuss Statutory Instruments such as these we can only complain. If the provision is inadequate, there is nothing we can do to make it more adequate.
There is no doubt that many of these fishermen are getting a poor return for the hazardous and arduous tasks which they perform, nor do I think that there is any doubt at all that a great many of them are finding it exceedingly difficult to maintain from their current incomes their payments on their loans. This brings me to the point to which the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Sir D. McCallum) directed most of his remarks. Incidentally, I notice that he has departed from the Chamber. It seems to be the custom nowadays that after an hon. Member has addressed the House he thinks that his next move is furth of the Chamber. I think it most regrettable.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the difficulty which some of those fishermen who have acquired boats under grants and loans Schemes have in repaying the loan. That was a matter also dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) and several other hon. Members, and I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to say a word about it. Our information, from the West Coast fishermen in particular, is that the Herring Industry Board is bringing great pressure to bear on the working fishermen for repayment of loans, and that some of them have been sold up. It may be that there are cases where this is inescapable, where it is necessary in the public interest, but we must all bear in mind the circumstances in which some of those men took on their commitments.
I well remember in the immediate post-war years those fishermen who returned from the Royal Navy. They went back into the fishing industry. They were fishing from old and obsolete vessels, and it was thought in all parts of the House that it would be most desirable if there could be introduced some scheme whereby those men could be enabled themselves to become owners or part-owners of modern, oil-driven vessels. Schemes were devised. The men took on very heavy commitments. They were not to know that costs would rise against them year in and year out. That is what has been happening. Costs have been rising against them all the time.
I well remember when the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), sat on this side of the House and I sat on the Government side of the House. I, like him, sat at the end of the debate, with a few papers in my hand, waiting for my turn to try to reply to the many criticisms that had been made. The Joint Under-Secretary could always be depended upon to make a rather forceful speech about the hardships suffered by the fishermen in consequence of rising costs. Those fishermen have experienced steadily rising costs. They have found it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to maintain the repayments of the loans, and sometimes even to maintain the payment of interest on the loans. As a result, they have been sold up.
These fishermen rose to the bait of grants and loans for new vessels. That bait is still being offered. It is Government policy, which is supported in all parts of the House. These fishermen rose to the bait, and were securely caught by the Herring Industry Board. Some of them, I have learned much to my regret, are now cursing the day they undertook ownership, and they now think that they might have been wiser to have got out of the industry when the going was good.
The Minister has made clear today that he does not want those fishermen to get out. He wants them to stay in. But they are now being driven out, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leith said, not only are they being driven out after having been sold up, but they are now scratching for a living somewhere else, while the Herring Industry Board is still demanding of them the repayment of moneys still outstanding. I merely ask the Joint Under-Secretary to have a look at this matter.
Is not the Herring Industry Board being unnecessarily harsh with some of those men? Perhaps the Board gave them their grants and loans too easily in the first place—I do not know—but I understand that a good many of those men who have been affected by this policy are hardworking, genuine fishermen who perhaps are not best fitted for ownership. They are not gifted with the qualities of management, and perhaps ought never to have been entrusted with the ownership of vessels. That could well be so. I think that probably is so.
However, now that we have caught these men, as it were, in this net—because it was the Government and Parliament that offered the bait—let us not treat them too harshly. Let us be generous. After all, we spend a great deal of public money on these Schemes in any case. Let us show a little generosity to these hard-working fishermen when they really come up against it, very largely as a result of rising costs over which they personally have no control at all.
Much has been said in criticism of the Government's policy of giving an increased subsidy to owners of coal-burning steam vessels because of the increased costs that they have to meet. It is said that there is a feeling of bitterness among the owners of more modern boats


because the men who are fishing with the more obsolescent vessels are getting more, whereas in many cases they themselves are getting less.
I think that the Minister is in a real difficulty. It would be foolish for us to pretend that he is not. He cannot scrap all the steam vessels at present. If he did, it would greatly hurt not only the owners and the men employed on the vessels but certain communities, and certainly the port of Aberdeen. It seems to me, however, that the Government must do their utmost to bring home to the men who own those vessels, and who are getting an increased subsidy to meet increased costs, that this cannot go on for ever, and that they really must put their best foot forward to see that those boats are replaced by modern vessels.
In that connection, I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to say a word about the progress being made. The Minister said a little about progress being made for the country as a whole in the replacement of obsolete vessels, but so much has been said about the port of Aberdeen that I wonder whether the Minister could say what has been happening there. We shall only now be convinced as a House that real progress is being made when we see real progress being made in the port of Aberdeen.
I wonder if the Joint Under-Secretary can tell us something about the movement in the cost of providing new vessels. The Minister said something about a range of vessels from £100,000 to £120,000; but would the hon. Gentleman give us a fuller picture about the movement in the cost of providing new vessels? Would he tell us what is the effect of the higher interest rates on the annual repayment on loans? If we cannot have that information, we cannot really know whether these schemes and the Order are any more generous, or make the position any easier for fishermen, than the earlier ones. My own impression is that, with all the increases in costs that fishermen have had to bear in recent years, not forgetting the increase in interest rates, the position of the fisherman seeking to repay the loan he got some years ago or that of the man only now deciding on a new vessel or the putting in of a new engine, is probably worse than it

was two years ago under the then operating Schemes.
It is a little unfortunate, when we have a series of new Orders or new Schemes, always increasing the grant from the previous figure, that whereas the impression is given that we are being more generous to the fisherman, it may well be that he is being less generously treated than he was a few years earlier. If the Minister can give us some information about the movement in the cost of providing new vessels, we shall then be able to put the matter into perspective. Without that information we cannot.
Could the hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the effect of the higher interest rates on the annual repayments on loans? That is terribly important for a man who is just taking over his vessel at the present high cost of both vessels and money. Could he tell us also something about the increase in the cost of gear? He himself must be very well informed about that because, as I said, in the debates a few years ago he never failed to make a speech calling for information about the cost of gear. As he himself is now much nearer the source of the information, I am sure that he is constantly armed with the answers to all these questions.
The difficulty which the Minister finds himself in today is, of course, a difficulty which is not an uncommon one for his colleagues in the present Government. The Chancellor seems to have sought to counter rising costs by pushing them still higher: that goes on all the time. That, in turn, has led to the need for higher subsidies in the fishing industry. It does not seem very clever, and it does not seem to be a very effective means of reducing expenditure. It does not seem to be very effective in bringing down the cost of living.
It is clear that we cannot vote against the Statutory Instruments which we have before us tonight. No hon. Member in any part of the House has suggested that we should vote against them. Criticism has been made of them. The Minister has been asked to consider, between now and this time next year, whether he can deal more comprehensively and a little more generously with the industry. He himself has told us that we are to have legislation in the course of the next


Session of Parliament. The intimation he made about that was rather more detailed than that which we normally receive at this stage, in advance of the Queen's Speech. We do not complain about that. Such information as the right hon. Gentleman has given us has been welcome, I think, to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We on this side certainly welcome it.
I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary, in replying to the debate tonight, will give us an assurance that the Government have some idea of where their policies are leading the fishing industry, to which we all owe so much.

8.40 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): As usual, this has been an interesting debate. I would like to pick up at once the points made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), particularly as his first point was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Sir D. McCallum). On the West Coast, particularly round about Campbeltown, Kintyre and thereabouts, as in the Firth of Forth, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) mentioned, in recent years herring have for some unexplainable reason, not turned up in the usual numbers.
The ring net herring fishermen on the West Coast have therefore been getting smaller catches than before, and, naturally enough, some of them are suffering distress. By no means all the ring net men on the West Coast are in difficulties or are having discussions with the Herring Industry Board about the problem of repaying their loans. Some of them are getting on very well, because a good many of them have changed over from herring to white fish. They are exploiting the fish in other areas. One would hope that all of them sooner or later might feel disposed to adopt that solution.
I admit, however, that a few of the men are in difficulties, and my hon. and gallant Friend has written to me about it. The matter has been taken up quite seriously and we have examined it. The Highland Panel has been into it and the Herring Industry Board is very much concerned about it. At the present time, the latest representations from the Kintyre fishermen are being considered.
As the hon. Member for Hamilton knows, when a body like the Herring Industry Board is given a job to do, it is not right for the Minister to interfere in every detail of its work. We must, therefore, leave it to the Board to work this matter out. That is not say that we are abandoning all interest, but at the moment we feel that we would be wise to leave the matter as it stands in the full confidence that the Board will do what is right and proper.
Among his other questions, the hon. Member for Hamilton asked how many new boats were appearing in Aberdeen. It is a test point, I quite agree. My right hon. Friend gave the figures for the rest of the country and said that the total number of new vessels, including those approved, was 123. That includes 18 approved in Aberdeen. I do not think that that is nearly enough, and progress has been much too slow. One only hopes that now that a start has been made, the pace may accelerate. Both we and the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority are doing all that we can to spur on Aberdeen in this important matter.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton that we must make the steam vessel owners, especially the owners of older vessels, realise that the subsidy is not going on for ever and that they really must get rid of these uneconomic boats and re-equip themselves, as the English owners are doing much more effectively.
As to the increased cost of vessels, I think that probably the best answer to the hon. Member is to remind him that my right hon. Friend has already said that a white fish boat that could have been built for £100,000 three years ago now costs anything up to £125,000. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Leith on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Croan, for whom, as the hon. Member knows, I have the highest admiration, and who is undoubtedly one of our most enterprising owners in Scotland. One does sympathise with an owner who is having to pay that much more for a vessel, but there is the other side of the story, and though I admit that it applies mainly to inshore fishing, it is a fact that, by and large, earnings are going up, and I am quite sure that Mr. Croan, that very sound business man,


although he complains to the hon. Member, as he did to me, about increased costs, will not stop his enterprises just because of that. He can see a future for himself, I am quite sure. I shall make further reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Leith in a few moments.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. Friend had given a good example of this increase from £100,000 to £125,000, an increase of 25 per cent. Would that example apply equally to a smaller vessel? Is this a general increase of 25 per cent. in building costs?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure I am able to answer that question. My impression is that the increase would not be as great for a smaller vessel. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to write to him about it. It is a matter of figures, and I should like to be right about it.

Mr. Edward Evans: My information is that a vessel which cost £50,000 three years ago costs £70,000 now.

Mr. Stewart: There is a percentage figure for which I was asked, and I think I had better answer the question of the hon. Member for Hamilton about the inshore fishing vessels precisely.
The cost of gear has gone up. It is true that I used to say something about that in other times. We find that costs for inshore fishing vessels last year went up 8 per cent. all over. That 8 per cent. included the increase in the price of gear. It may be taken, therefore, that the increase in the price of gear was not so staggering as it was in previous years.
The increase in the rates of interest, to which reference has been made once or twice, has to be met from the owners' profits, and these, as I shall show in a minute, in the inshore fishing industry have definitely increased. It is an interesting fact that in the first six months of this year the earnings of the Scottish inshore vessels of under 70 ft. are up by 17·6 per cent. per average day at sea on what they were this time last year. That increase of earnings is, of course, vital in the assessment of profits.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) began by making us very frightened, when he said he was going to use astringent tones. I think the only thing he was astringent about was the

fact that there had not been a proper debate on fishing for a long time. In that we all sympathise with him, but it is for the Opposition to choose a Supply Day for a debate on fishing. The Government can hardly be expected to offer a day for a discussion on fishing unless they have a Bill or an Order to put before the House. I would assure the hon. Member that if his right hon. Friends care to choose a Supply Day for a debate on the fishing industry, we shall welcome it. We should like a full day's discussion of fishing as soon as the Opposition like to choose it.

Mr. Edward Evans: Surely the Report of the White Fish Authority and the Annual Report of the Herring Industry Board offer wonderful opportunities for the Government to justify the activities of those bodies for which, in this House, they are responsible.

Mr. Stewart: That is quite true, but Supply Days are precisely in order to meet the kind of desire that the hon. Member has expressed. That is the duty of the Opposition. He ought to address himself behind the scenes to his right hon. Friends, but I assure him that we should greatly welcome a debate of this kind.
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member say that he welcomed the proposals in general, that he hoped that costs would fall and the industry might be able to make ends meet and become stabilised. That is what we are all trying to achieve. I agree with him that we want to raise this whole problem out of the realm of party politics and I was therefore very grateful for his speech. He finished by offering us good wishes for the successful operation of these Schemes, and no one could offer a more friendly comment than that.
The hon. Member asked about crew settlements. He asked whether there had been consultations with representatives of the officers and the crews. I will tell him exactly what happened. The Government took a decision on this matter, for reasons which my right hon. Friend has explained, and which I noticed has not been challenged in any speech today. We did not think that this was a matter on which we were called upon to enter into consultations. We therefore did not consult anybody, but we informed the owners


and the two unions. We saw the Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and we wrote to and spoke on the telephone to the Secretary of the Trawler Officers' Guild in Scotland, but no consultation took place with the owners on this matter, nor did the suggestion come from the owners at all.
The hon. Member said that it was incomprehensible to him that a greater incentive was given to inefficient vessels, meaning the steam trawlers, and so little incentive was given to the efficient ones. I see the general purpose of that argument, but I remind the hon. Member that as a result of our policy, that is to say of giving the steam vessels no more than just enough to keep some of them going, 57 went out of circulation in 1953, 56 in the following year, and 87 in the next year, and 51 have gone already this year. I have no doubt that in the course of this year the number and proportion will rise. We are expecting that, before the end of the period covered by the general proposals presented tonight, the older vessels will largely have disappeared. There are now 434 of these vessels, the mainstay of which are found in England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) spoke with his usual passion about the problems of his inshore fishermen constituents. I do not want to be ever at cross-purposes with my hon. Friend, but, if I may be allowed to put it that way, I should like to put him right on this matter. We had a very good response to our appeal for facts in Scotland. We received particulars from 286 boats of between 40 feet and 70 feet in length and from 104 boats of under 40 feet in length. They comprise about half the fleet of boats between 40 ft. and 70 ft., which incidentally accounts for 90 per cent. of the Scottish inshore catch. The Association asked us to regard only the boats over 40 ft. and not those under. That is why my hon. Friend was right in saying that the returns we got were, for the most part, from the most successful boats.
We found from those returns that in 1955 the boats between 40 ft. and 70 ft. had an average net profit of £388. As I have told the House, in the first six months of this year the earnings of these boats had risen on an average 17½ per cent, per day at sea over the same period last year. If my hon. Friend would like

it, I can give him a little piece of mathematics relating increased earnings to increased profits.

Mr. Duthie: indicated assent.

Mr. Stewart: For example, an increase of 10 per cent. in gross earnings over the whole year in Scotland would raise the profits of boats between 40 ft. and 70 ft. by £80 as compared with 1955; that is to say, about £460 per vessel. The profits of boats under 40 ft. would rise by about £20 compared with 1955, or to about £70 per vessel.
I cannot help thinking, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to share the thought with me, that if we are giving Government money on behalf of the nation in the form of subsidy to a group of people who are making an average profit of £460 per vessel, those people cannot reasonably ask for a larger subsidy.
This brings it, in terms of the crew, to about £10 per man per week. I know that my hon. Friend challenged that statement, but there is a reason for the difference of opinion between himself and myself. We asked the inshore fishermen for their returns, which they sent to us. We then sent them our summary, having reviewed those figures and said what we thought they meant. We saw the inshore fishermen, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw them a second time. They argued, as did my hon. Friend, that £11 a week, which was our first figure, was unreasonable and that it should be £8 a week on their calculation.
They said that their figures were based on 39 weeks' fishing in the year. We replied that this was not reasonable, that they should take a figure of forty-five weeks' fishing in the year. On reflection they agreed that this was a reasonable period to take, because although they may well have been on white fish for only thirty-nine weeks, for the other five or six weeks they might have been on herring or on additional white fish. That explains the difference, and the result of the agreement on forty-five weeks brings the figure to about £10, which is not disputed.

Mr. Duthie: My hon. Friend is drawing a parallel between 1956 and 1955 for gross earnings. Surely he must take into account the fact that we are working on a subsidy which is 20 per cent. less


this year than last. Moreover, I hope my hon. Friend will accept from me the statement that it is wrong to base a year's working on any part thereof, particularly the first six months. We can only deal with a year when the twelve months are ended, as was evidenced in 1955, when the figures for the first nine months were falsified by the end of the year.

Mr. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend and I should get together about this. I should be glad to talk to him afterwards. It is a complicated matter. The first point he made was that the profits in 1955 were based on a subsidy of 10d, but the subsidy is now only 8d. That is true, but we took account of it in arriving at our figures. Secondly, he asked whether it is fair to take a period of six months and use it as a basis for the whole year. He has a point there, but it is interesting to note that whereas the increase in the first five months was 15 per cent., in the first six months it had risen to 17½ per cent. It certainly does not look as if profits are going down.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Member comparing two six-month periods?

Mr. Stewart: That is what I am doing. I am using the same period as last year.
For those reasons and others which I could mention, I ask my hon. Friend with great respect—because I realise how knowledgeable he is on this matter—to agree with me that in all the circumstances, acting responsibly, and with these figures presented to us, we should not have been justified in calling upon the general body of taxpayers to increase the subsidy to inshore fishermen. I am sorry, but that is how it seems to us.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has just given some calculations of the income of a vessel—about £10 a week.

Mr. Stewart: Per man on the boat. I gave the profits for the boat at over £400 and I converted that into the wages for the crew.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman gave the profits on the boat as £450. That worked out to be the maximum, the most optimistic, profit for a boat in a year. I wondered whether it took any account of the depreciation of the vessel and what the sum represented as interest on the money put into the vessel. What

is the return on the money put into the vessel, in terms of the £450 per year?

Mr. Stewart: That figure includes depreciation but, of course, does not include interest, because if we have one we cannot have the other. Any accountant will agree with me that one is the same as the other but expressed in different terms.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said the profit for the vessel represented a return of less than 4 per cent. on the cost of the vessel. Does the Minister accept that figure of less than 4 per cent. on the cost of a vessel or does he dispute it and offer a higher figure?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think I can answer that, because we are getting into accountancy matters and I should need a little notice of them. I have no doubt that the answer is in my papers, but I cannot find it offhand. The facts as I have given them are enough to justify us in the action which we have taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff also mentioned the comparison between steam trawlers and motor vessels. This point has been made several times in the debate and was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley). The reference was to Fleetwood, where we have these very large, new and expensive motor vessels, and it is true that under the new schedules that class will not receive any subsidy at all. But when I inform the House of the profits which these new, very expensive motor vessels are making, hon. Members will, I think, agree with me without any hesitation that we are right not to give them a subsidy. These vessels, about which my hon. Friend spoke—new motor vessels from 130 to 140 feet—are estimated to be making a profit in the present year of £11,000, which is about 8 per cent. on capital, including depreciation at the rate of 7 per cent. That being so, the Government could not possibly stand up to the criticism which would be made if we gave subsidies to vessels making that sort of profit. Other motor vessels of 120 to 130 feet are making £1,269, although I admit that the smaller vessels are making a loss. The big ones to which my hon. Friend particularly referred are making very large profits.

Mr. Stanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has taken different figures. On last year's figures, I agree that it was all right, but this year's figures are completely different. With the much higher running costs, the figures which he is now giving will work out absolutely wrong next year.

Mr. Stewart: These are the estimated profits for 1956–57, that is this year. I do not announce these figures without being able to inform the House that they are the result of very careful examination by our accountants. If we are proved wrong and my hon. Friend is proved right, I shall be very ready to admit it. As to whether the increased grant for new boats should be made retrospective, I am afraid that my answer must be in the negative.
The hon. Member for Leith referred to the exceptional case of Mr. Croan who was about to start the building of a new boat, the keel of which had not yet been laid. It may be in that case that other considerations come about. I would recommend Mr. Croan to make an immediate approach to the White Fish Authority to see whether some action can be taken.
The hon. Member for Leith made a number of other points, and I have tried to cover some of them. The 15 per cent. deposit which a prospective owner of a vessel has to put down at once is a problem which has been put to me by the hon. Member and by his constituent. As I think he knows, I am impressed with the case and we are now looking at this problem. I think that there is a good case for something to be done, but I am not in a position now to make any promise.
With regard to the conversion to oil from steam, we have said that we are satisfied that a number of steam vessels—speaking from memory about 40—could properly and usefully be converted. It would be expensive, but it would be cheaper than building new motor boats. To do it we should have to have new legislation. We have no power to do it now. All I can say is that we want to bring in that legislation at the earliest possible moment. As to whether or not there should be a retrospective Clause in it, I am not able to say at the moment.
The hon. Member raised a special case about which he has written to me con-

cerning the Herring Industry Board. I would rather not speak about that case now because I understand that it is a personal case.

Mr. Hoy: I gave it only as an instance of what was happening and as a guide to the Minister when he was proposing to give some attention to the herring industry.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) raised a number of points, the principal one being, I think, the six-hour rule. This new arrangement really solves that problem. Under the new Scheme, the days at sea are arrived at as follows. The first day is the day they leave port and the last day is the day when they dispose of their catch at the quayside. We think, therefore, and we have the support of the owners' association in this belief, that the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, that of lying outside the harbour and thereby getting an extra day's subsidy, will no longer arise.

Mr. Ede: Does that mean that if a vessel leaves port at 11.59 p.m. that counts as a day?

Mr. Stewart: I suppose the answer would be Yes, but I do not know why a vessel should leave at 11.59 p.m. Vessels generally go out with the tide.

Mr. Ede: But the tide sometimes goes out at 11.59 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South also raised the topic of having a fishery Minister in the Cabinet. We now have two fishery Ministers in the Cabinet and both are good at the job.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) raised the topic of life rafts. It is difficult to deal with that for reasons which he knows. I am told that two firms are now making rafts and it is not known which will be the cheaper and that some people are therefore holding back. That is a very difficult topic for a Minister to tackle. We are aware of it, and I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. I am afraid that some of the other issues he raised were out of order, which avoids the necessity for my having to deal with them.

Mr. G. R. Howard: It is fortunate that an English Member should be sufficiently in order to get into this debate at all. There were one or two other points which were sufficiently in order to be allowed to remain, and I hope that they will be borne in mind. They were subjects such as fishery protection vessels and other issues, and I hope that I may be informed about them.

Mr. Stewart: When I said that the other subjects were out of order, I did not mean that they were unimportant. I should not be so presumptuous. However, it was not for me to reply to them in this debate.
The hon. Member for Hamilton was not too accurate in his comment that the House had been critical. On the contrary, I cannot recollect a fishing debate where the Government has introduced legislation which has found more general acceptance. I trust that that is a good augury for the future and that as a result of our joint efforts great success will come to this industry.

Resolved,
That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

White Fish Subsidy (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1956, [copy laid before the House, 10th July], approved.—[Mr. Amory.]

White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme, 1956, [copy laid before the House, 10th July], approved.—[Mr. Amory.]

Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) (Amendment) Scheme, 1956, [copy laid before the House, 10th July], approved.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(INNS AND INNKEEPERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 5, leave out "A" and insert "An".

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Phelim O'Neill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is pure pedantry. As it does not in any way alter the meaning of the Bill, I express "an" hope that the House will agree with it.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 1, line 10, leave out "a" and insert "an".

In line 12, leave out "a" and insert "an".—[Mr. P. O'Neill.]

Clause 2.—(MODIFICATIONS OF LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS OF INNKEEPERS AS SUCH.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 2, line 3, leave out "a" and insert "an".

In line 14, leave out "a" and insert "an".—[Mr. P. O'Neill.]

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 16, after "vehicle" insert "or any property left therein".

Mr. P. O'Neill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is a very useful one. As the law stands a hotel proprietor has a strict liability for all motor vehicles. Under the Bill this is limited, and when it comes into force hotel proprietors will no longer be under that strict liability. The Amendment merely makes it clear that any property left in a motor car is in the same position as the motor car itself. Guests will have to protect themselves in future by ensuring that their luggage is taken into the hotel.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 2, line 18, leave out "a" and insert "an".—[Mr. P. O'Neill.]

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 21, leave out second "one" and insert "two".

Mr. P. O'Neill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is the only major Amendment of any consequence. As the law stands the liability of an innkeeper is limited to £30. Under the Bill as passed in this House, liability was limited to £50 in respect of any one article, and £100 in the aggregate. The other place altered the latter figure to £200. I am not particularly enthusiastic about the Amendment that I have moved. It was against the recommendation of the Law Reform Committee which went into the matter very carefully, and the object of which was to preserve the balance between the hotel keeper and the public. I feel that the Amendment very slightly disturbs that balance.
It is really a matter of opinion. It is quite true that in these days the value of the contents of a suitcase is very considerable, if one cares to add it up. At the same time, £200 seems to me to be rather a large sum. On the other hand, it is much easier for hotel proprietors than for individuals to insure against their liabilities. Again, it is the universal practice for hotel proprietors to undertake such insurance. The net result would no doubt be a very small increase in premiums for the hotel proprietor. I feel that this is a matter which should be left to the common sense of hon. Members, and if any strong views should be expressed that the liability limit should revert to the figure of £100 I should not be prepared to oppose those views.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I do so for three main reasons. My first reason is that I do not think we ought casually to interfere with the law as it affects individuals. When Governments set out to alter the law—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member need not move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." He may speak and vote against the Motion, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Paget: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we ought casually to interfere with the law as it affects individuals. When Governments are doing this sort of thing there are consultations with the interests concerned. Those consultations take place over a period of time. The Government then come to their conclusions and make their proposals to the House. A private individual does not have that opportunity for consultation. Therefore, I think that we should always look very jealously at private Members' proposals to alter the law as it affects individuals and citizens, unless those proposals are bottomed upon an independent inquiry.
That independent inquiry may be the report of a Royal Commission or it may be the Report, as is the basis of this Bill, of the Law Reform Committee, a committee of very distinguished judges and others who have the power to hear evidence and who have heard evidence. They heard the evidence, they balanced the claims of the various people interested and they suggested the sum of £100 as the limit of absolute liability of an innkeeper, that is to say, the amount for which an innkeeper should be liable for the loss of his guest's goods, if the innkeeper himself were in no way to blame for that loss.
If the innkeeper is to blame, then there is no limit to his liability. If the visitor at the inn gives the goods to the hotel-keeper and says, "Look after these," again there is no limit to his liability, but if the visitor to the hotel does not give the goods to the hotel keeper to look after, but just takes them with him and puts them in the cloakroom or in his room or leaves them in the dining room, or wherever it may be, and the goods disappear, then the hotel keeper's liability for something for which he is in no way to blame should be limited to £100.
That is what the independent inquiry said, and another place proceeded to increase that liability to £200, after a very casual discussion and after hearing no evidence at all, by a majority of three. I say that that is a casual interference with the law and one to which we should not agree. Apart from that, I believe that another place was moved by reasons which involved a complete misunderstanding of what the Law Reform Committee had, in fact, decided, because in evidence before the Law Reform Committee it


had been said on behalf of the hotel proprietors, "This obsolete law which applies to us and does not apply to anybody else merely arose from the fact that hundreds of years ago hotel proprietors and innkeepers tended to be in league with highwaymen. Now no one really suggests that we are in league with highwaymen, and we ought to be put in the position of anybody else who accepts the goods of another, and we should only be responsible if we are to blame." I am quoting the evidence of the hotel proprietors as given to the Law Reform Committee. That is, in effect, what they said.
The Law Reform Committee said "No. We think that you ought to be responsible for casual pilfering". Casual pilfering does not mean stealing suitcases. Stealing suitcases is a major robbery. It was not the view of the Law Reform Committee that when that sort of thing takes place there should be absolute liability by the innkeeper if he were in no way to blame; all that he should be responsible for—it is to make him careful—is that casual pilfering does not take place in his hotel.
I believe that that was a right decision, and on the basis of that decision the argument in the House of Lords about the value of the contents of a suitcase is entirely irrelevant. It was not for that type of robbery that the principle of absolute liability was retained.
My second point is that this Amendment is wrong on the merits. If we establish a fairly high level of absolute liability, we shall have a number of gentlemen going into the business of working the hotels. They will register at hotels under different names. They will put in a claim for £200 at one hotel and get away with it, because it is almost impossible for the innkeeper to disprove it, and they will then move on to another hotel. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) that it will not make very much difference to the all-over premium paid by the hotel proprietor, but it will make a tremendous difference in the nuisance value of the number of claims submitted. We are inviting fraud by putting a high absolute liability on losses which it is difficult to check and to which blamelessness is no answer.
Thirdly—this is why I am interested in the matter—I happen to be the rapporteur of a sub-committee of the Com-

mittee for Legal Affairs of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. The sub-committee is engaged in persuading the Governments of Europe to accept a common law of liability for innkeepers so that travellers throughout Europe shall be in the same position wherever they may be. As the rapporteur, I had proposed to the sub-committee that the common law which the others should accept should be that which we were adopting here, and there seemed to be a general attitude that that proposal would be accepted. Then, without consulting anybody, without hearing any evidence at all, another place alters the whole basis of the proposal which we had made through the Council of Europe to the other Governments.
In making the recommendations upon which the Bill was founded, the Law Reform Committee had consulted the other Governments and made its recommendations in line with the general basis of the law in Continental countries. It is not precisely the same. All except Holland have a limitation on absolute liability, and in each case it amounts to about £100. This Lords Amendment puts us out of line with everyone else, and makes our proposal that Europe should accept our lead in this matter, in which the Council of Europe has been directed to try to agree on a similar basis, out of tune with everyone else. For those reasons I hope we shall not agree with the Lords Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I represent many hotel keepers, and they are most grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) for having taken such an interest in this matter, more especially as the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. For the reasons given by him and by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) I think that we should stick to the figure of £100, which I believe to be a reasonable one. I hope that we shall reject the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I have no hesitation in associating myself with the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I have no fear that in my so


doing even the most political of the political correspondents will sense a revolt inside the Conservative Party. This is, indeed, a completely non-party matter, and when, in the House of Lords, this proposal was advanced, and eventually passed, it was passed against the advice of the Lord Chancellor. I should, therefore, be surprised if any of my hon. Friends felt obliged, for merely party reasons, to support this Lords Amendment.
The Lords inserted, at the second shot, this figure of £200, for one reason only. They argued that the value of the ordinary person's weekend luggage has risen from £100 to £200, and that the innkeeper's liability should reflect that change. I honestly do not know what noble Lords put inside their weekend suitcases. Mine usually contains a pair of pyjamas, a tooth brush, a razor and that morning's copy of HANSARD. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] To suppose that the ordinary person's suitcase contains articles which are cumulatively of greater value than that is to assume a great deal.
Even if we assume that the total value of the contents of an average person's suitcase is £200, why should the hotelier be liable for all that? Why should he have to take all the precautions and all the risk? Why should not some of the risk and some of the precautions be shared by his customers, his guests? I think that the House should remember that under our law the hotel keeper is obliged to accept as a guest anybody who presents himself; and he cannot distinguish between those he likes the look of and those that he does not. There is no other institution which caters for the public—restaurants, trains, ships, theatres, garages—where those who own or manage them incur a similar liability when they have not been negligent.
The hotel keeper, under this Bill and under existing law, is liable to the extent of £100, as we would have it, or £200 as another place would have it, even if no negligence at all can be proved against him. I believe that the figure should be kept at £100, and that to raise it to £200 would be most unfair on hotel keepers who, incidentally, form a major industry in my own constituency, which is why I am on my feet. I think that it would be unfair for two reasons. It would

inevitably mean that hotel keepers would have to pay a larger premium to cover the larger risk; and the guests would take less care in looking after their own valuables or general luggage.
A mink coat cannot be put in a safe. It is left about one's room, and the innkeeper would therefore be liable to pay the owner up to £200 of its value, even if it was another guest in the hotel who made off with the mink coat. I think that that is an unreasonable demand to make upon hotel keepers, in addition to all the other burdens we put upon them. Even at the risk of jeopardising the Bill—and I think it is unlikely that it will be jeopardised—I would ask the House to reject the Lords Amendment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): The Government, viewing this as a matter of opinion and degree, desire to remain entirely neutral in the matter. All I want to do is to quarrel with the hon. and learned rapporteur, the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in describing this matter as having been dealt with on a basis of very casual discussion in another place. It is perfectly true that they introduced this Amendment into the Bill by a majority of three, but it is also true that they introduced it into the Bill, after it had been defeated in Committee, by a majority of three, in the other place. So they pushed it in one direction first, and then in this direction thereafter. In those circumstances, it is, in my opinion, a little hard to describe the process as a matter of casual discussion.

Mr. Paget: On both occasions the Division numbers were in the teens.

The Solicitor-General: They may have been in the teens, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks that the opinions of those outside another place and this House are not consulted, he is living in a curious fairyland.
To complete the argument before the House decides what it will do, may I add one word on the case in favour of retaining the Bill as it left this House. The hotel proprietor will now be liable under this Bill not only for the loss of the property of the guest but also for damage to it; and may I add to the other side of the case, because it has not been stated—and in my panoply of neutrality I now state it in the service of the House—


that the hotel proprietor will, under this Bill, be relieved of strict liability in respect of non-residents, cars and contents of cars, and it seems right to bear in mind that it is in favour of the views of another place that this proposed figure is, after all, a maximum figure. The guest, honest or dishonest, will be required to prove the actual loss that he has suffered, and that does not mean the replacement value of the dinner jacket but its actual value.
Those are perhaps considerations which the House would think it right to bear in mind. I express no view. I hope that the right balance as between the hotel proprietor and his guests will prevail.

Question put and negatived.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 41, leave out "this section" and insert:
the notice set out in the Schedule to this Act".

Mr. P. O'Neill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is consequential on the introduction of a Schedule setting out the notice which proprietors must display at or near the reception office, if they wish to take advantage of the Bill's restrictions on their liabilities.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to point out that as a result of what we appear to be going to invite their Lordships to do, the Schedule as it now stands would be wrong. I have not had time to consider what is the right way to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) and the House. I do not know whether it would be possible, by manuscript Amendment, to get it right?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see that it arises on this Amendment. I think I should accept a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) to amend consequentially the Schedule when we come to it.

Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE, REPEAL, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT. 26 & 27 VICT. c. 41.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 2, leave out "(Liabilities and Rights)".

Mr. P. O'Neill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These words "Liabilities and Rights" are really superfluous and redundant; the Lords Amendment merely has the effect of clarifying and shortening the Title of the Bill.

New Schedule A.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 6, at end add new Schedule A:

Orders of the Day — NOTICE

Loss OF OR DAMAGE TO GUESTS' PROPERTY

Under the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, a hotel proprietor may in certain circumstances be liable to make good any loss of or damage to a guest's property even though it was not due to any fault of the proprietor or staff of the hotel.

This liability however—

(a) extends only to the property of guests who have engaged sleeping accommodation at the hotel;
(b) is limited to £50 for any one article and a total of £200 in the case of any one guest except in the case of property which has been deposited, or offered for deposit, for safe custody;
(c) does not cover motor-cars or other vehicles of any kind or any property left in them, or horses or other live animals.

This notice does not constitute an admission either that the Act applies to this hotel or that liability thereunder attaches to the proprietor of this hotel in any particular case."

Read a Second time.

Mr. P. O'Neill: Would it be in order now for me to move my manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "£200" and insert "£100".

Amendment agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill:—Mr. Ede, Mr. N. Nicolson, Mr. P. O'Neill, Mr. Paget, and the Solicitor-General:—Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. P. O'Neill.]:—To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.

SANITARY INSPECTORS (CHANGE OF DESIGNATION) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: We cannot allow this Bill to go without some word of criticism. I do not know where we are going with this polite language we are trying to adopt today. At one time, there were such people as ratcatchers. They became rodent operatives. I always thought that "ratcatcher" was a very good description of the job one hoped that such men were doing. Now, there are no longer to be sanitary inspectors, hut they will be called public health inspectors. I find in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary that "sanitary" means
of or pertaining to the conditions that affect health, especially with reference to cleanliness and precautions against infection.
Surely, a sanitary inspector was exactly the inspector of things pertaining to conditions affecting health. I, personally, could see nothing wrong with the title as it stood.
I said earlier that I wondered how far we were going with this politeness in regard to titles. I wonder whether some day some hon. Member will suggest that the title "Parliamentary Secretary" does not really define or indicate the importance of the job which a Parliamentary Secretary holds, and introduce a Private Member's Bill to provide that Parliamentary Secretaries shall be called Deputy Ministers. What shall we do about the Whips? Is it right that a body of such tender-hearted men—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing about Whips in the Bill.

Mr. Blackburn: I was really using it as an illustration of changes in title and designation, such as the one we have here, from "sanitary inspector" to "public health inspector". I will not pursue that line of argument.
There is likely to be confusion with regard to the change in title. There are

already people employed in the department of the medical officer of health who are referred to as public health inspectors. There is, therefore, likely to be confusion between public health officers and public health inspectors. I suppose that all this has arisen because the sanitary inspectors feel that their job is associated with sewers, drains and nuisances generally.
When I think of sanitary inspectors, I think of them as a fine body of men who have been doing an exceedingly good job. It will not make the slightest difference from that point of view whether they are called sanitary inspectors or public health inspectors. It is not worth voting against the Bill on such a matter, but it is important that we should make a protest about this sort of action which is being taken.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) in the comments he has made. The progress of the Bill through the House illustrates some of our difficulties in dealing with Private Members' Bills. The Bill came up for Second Reading on several occasions. It was impossible to discuss it because it came in unopposed at the time and one would have had to hold it up to discuss it. Nobody would want to hold up a Bill obstructively.
The Bill then went to Standing Committee. I took the trouble to ask to be put on that Committee so that I could make some remarks about the Bill, but on the morning that the Standing Committee was due to meet there was no quorum. Therefore, the Committee did not meet until a week later, when I could not attend owing to an engagement which had been made many months before. I have had no opportunity, therefore, of making any comments on the Bill until Third Reading and I am sorry that it should be necessary to raise the matter at this late stage.
Like my hon. Friend, I did not want to vote against the Bill. If a body of men as valuable as sanitary inspectors want to change their name in this way, I would not hold them up. I would even less want to hold them up if I thought that the Bill would increase the number of sanitary inspectors, because there is a tremendous shortage of them.


If people are going to prefer to become public health inspectors to becoming sanitary inspectors, there may be something to be said for the change.
In my opinion, however, this is fundamentally a silly Bill and a foolish proposal. The name of the sanitary inspector is an ancient and honourable name. All through our history of public health legislation, in the very front rank has been the sanitary inspector. One remembers the famous remark of Disraeli:
"Sanitas sanitatum omnia sanitas."
When he thought in his day that at the bottom of all public health legislation were drains, smells and all the unpleasant things that we now rather try to put in the background, he was right.
It would be a great pity if people got the idea that environmental health was now a rather delicate affair which could be done by going along with a penicillin spray without having to tackle the basic problems of bad smells, bad drains, bad refuse collection and all the kind of things that at the back of our urban civilisation are the real dangers of the spread of infectious disease. Therefore, one wonders a little whether the motive behind the Bill is really that of trying to pretend that we can ignore things like sanitation and that we must think of health protection and environmental health in terms of delicate euphemisms.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, it seems a little unwise, in this House of all places, to suggest that, because a name has ceased to convey the nature of the office to which it is applied, it should be changed. After all, you, Mr. Speaker, would be in imminent danger were this to be the common practice. No one can pretend that the main contribution you make to our proceedings is by speaking.
It is true that the sanitary inspector has ceased, because of the change in the nature of his job, to have a great deal to do with elementary sanitation nowadays, but this may not always be so, and it does not matter in the least, because as I have said, the name is an honourable one, and one to which people can point with great pride.
I have one comfort in watching this rather foolish performance, and it is that the great British people are always proof against all these attempts to legislate in

euphemisms. A Bill may call him what hon. Members like, but the sanitary inspector will always remain the sanitary inspector in the language of the people who go to him. What we call him in a Bill may not matter very much. The important thing is that he is recognised as performing a very great and important function in the service of local authorities, and the name he has long had will, I am quite certain, still be the name by which the people will always call him.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: It seems to me that if we pass this Bill we shall be in at least one difficulty, because if we are to start upgrading the titles of local government officials we really ought to start by upgrading the title of the clerk to the council, because the clerk is much more than just a clerk nowadays. He is a manager or general manager in the sense in which the title is used in America. I think it is rather unfortunate, perhaps, that we should start at the level of sanitary inspector, instead of starting at a higher level. It seems to me we are in some difficulty in starting in this way. That is why I do not feel very enthusiastic about the Bill.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I am in a similar position to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), in that I have been trying to catch up with this Bill and, unfortunately, have succeeded in doing so only on Third Reading. I hope the House will reject the Bill for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes have stated. I see no purpose in the Bill at all.
As a result of modern trends and of our recent legislation in the Clean Air Act, some of the duties of the sanitary inspectors will be transferred to smoke abatement officers and sanitary inspectors will have to concern themselves with their original function, namely, looking after sewage disposal and drains.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I think my hon. Friend is at fault there. The work under the


Clean Air Act will remain very largely, if not entirely, with the sanitary inspectors.

Mr. Hobson: I know a little about the problem of smoke abatement. I have not served in local government and for twenty years in the engineering profession in power stations without having learned something of the ways and means of controlling smoke emission, particularly from large generating plants. The modern tendency is to have smoke abatement officers, and it will be less and less the duty of sanitary inspectors to deal with the work which will be done by smoke abatement officers, and the sanitary inspectors will be confined more to their original functions, which have been adequately described by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes.
What will the result of the Bill be? The result of changing the designation of sanitary inspectors to that of public health inspectors will be pressure, very common in local government, for increased salaries. The change of nomenclature will be used as an argument for their being paid considerable salary increases.
This is one of the normal processes which are taking place throughout local government. There is empire building on the one side and an increase in salaries for these people on the other for doing precisely the same job as they were doing before. We have seen many other examples. When I was in local government not many years ago there was a very important officer attached to the health department who was known as a rat catcher.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We have had that before.

Mr. Hobson: Hon. Members may have had it before, but they will get it again. My hon. Friend ought to know that there is no surer way of getting the hon. Member for Keighley to continue than to make an interruption of that kind. These rat catchers are now known as rodent officers. They are not catching more rats but they have had considerable increases in salary.
There is absolutely no need for the Bill at all. Why should we surrender to what is, after all, just a matter of people's vanity? That is what is involved in the

Bill. This is merely a lever whereby recommendations can be made for increases in salary. I hope that the House will divide on the Bill, chuck it out and treat it with the contempt which it deserves.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am sorry that some of my hon. Friends found it necessary to criticise this small Bill, which is welcomed by the people for whom we are legislating. I was glad to hear that it was because he was unavoidably detained that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was unable to attend the Committee, because on two occasions we tried desperately hard to secure a quorum to discuss the Bill in Committee. It is a little late now to offer criticisms—

Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend and I are good friends, and I know that he will forgive me for intervening. I stayed in the Committee all the time on the first day in order that there should be a quorum rather than try to kill the Bill by walking out. I was engaged at quarter sessions on the other day, as I told my hon. Friend, and therefore it is a little hard that I should be blamed now.

Mr. Wilkins: I am sorry. I withdraw the observation that I have just made, but that does not excuse a number of hon. Members who ought to have been present in the Committee.
I regard the objections made this evening as rather pettifogging. Surely one of the matters which we have to consider is that when we designate people who perform the functions of local government the designation of their office should at least have some sort of relationship to the job that they do. It is perfectly true that years ago the work of these inspectors was confined almost entirely to such things as inspecting drains, but their responsibilities today are in many ways totally different and are manifold compared with the jobs which they were originally called upon to do. They have shop inspection duties, inspection of weights and measures—

Mr. Hobson: Not in all boroughs.

Mr. Wilkins: We know where the objections come from, because we have had the literature circulated to us.

Mr. Hobson: The objections do not come from circulated literature. They come from experience. I was a member of Willesden Borough Council.

Mr. Wilkins: We also know that these objections come from certain interested parties who are not very anxious to see that these people are properly designated. These people's duties comprise many things other than the inspection of drains and sewers. We owe a great deal to them for the fact that, generally speaking, we have a meat supply which is free from tuberculosis.
One of the most important tasks that these people perform is that of meat inspection in abattoirs after the cattle have been slaughtered. When it comes to drains and sewers, in the main that is a job which is now passed over to the engineer's departments, in most boroughs at any rate, and sanitary inspectors are only called in when there are nuisances to which house-holders may object. Even after they have decided that a complaint is valid, it is generally passed over to the engineer's department to rectify.
I said in Committee that I welcomed this Bill. I believe that those who have objected to it, or at least have indicated to us as Members of Parliament that they have certain objections to it, have done so largely from a form of professional snobbery. They did not want these people to be upgraded but not for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), namely, that they would be asking for increased remuneration. After all, if they did that, they would only be doing something in common with many other people who are engaged in local authority work.
Therefore I welcome this Bill. I know many of these fellows personally. They are a fine body of men who do a conscientious job on behalf of the community. They are far from being limited to the terms which their present designation would imply, and in my opinion this is a long overdue reform of the designation accorded to them.

Mr. Blackburn: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the dictionary definition of the word "sanitary" exactly describes the job which they are doing now?

Mr. Wilkins: No, I would not.

Mr. Blackburn: Also would my hon. Friend please explain to us who do not know, what is the literature we are supposed to have received?

Mr. Wilkins: The literature is that which was sent by various organisations.

Mr. Blackburn: No, no.

Mr. Wilkins: Then my hon. Friend must be unique, because some of us have certainly received literature asking us to oppose this Bill.

Mr. Blackburn: No.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The interruption made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) brings us to the essential point in this matter. Everything I have heard described has had something to do with sanitation which, after all, deals with health. I should be sorry to see the title "sanitary inspector" disappear. I was in local government a long time before my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), being first elected to a local government authority in 1908, and I have always regarded the term "sanitary inspector" as a term of considerable honour. What is more, this House has always regarded it as such and took steps to safeguard the position of the sanitary inspector.
In my day, and I believe it is the same today, a local authority could not dismiss a sanitary inspector without the consent of the President of the Local Government Board who, I suppose, is now succeeded by the Minister of Health. However, Ministers' names have been so altered in the last twenty years that one never knows where the pea is under the many thimbles under which it can now hide. This is an honourable office safeguarded in that way. Surely that shows the importance which the Government of the day felt for it when the office was made? In fact, when I started in local government it was said that no sanitary inspector who did his job could expect to be popular in the area he served.
It is true that some of the things which then gave great concern, give less concern today, but there are plenty of boroughs and rural districts in which the elementary part, the first part, of the job of the sanitary inspector is still important. If people think it is upgrading to call him


a public health officer rather than a sanitary inspector, all I can say is that we can all have our ideas of the grading that words give to certain offices.
This was the officer who in those days was the right-hand man of the medical officer. He was expected to deal with many duties which could fall on a medical officer, such as infectious diseases—which still exist—to find out the environmental causes which had led to an epidemic and to deal with all sorts of problems which I believe still exist. Although they are more rare now than they were, it may require a great deal more vigilance on the part of the officers than in the days when we pretty well knew what was the cause of the trouble.
I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) that some people may think that the name sanitary inspector has some degrading connections. Those who recollect the work which sanitary inspectors did, often in the face of bitter opposition from the owners of small properties in their areas, will feel, I am sure, that it has always been a designation of honour—one which has always been held in honour. I know that some authorities object to being called sanitary authorities. I recollect that when I was chairman of a county council I once had an obstreperous band of county district councils in front of me trying to prevent the county council from doing what I thought it ought to do, and I referred to them as sanitary authorities. Their representatives immediately got up and protested, and I pointed out that ever since the Public Health Act, 1848, that was how they had been described in the Acts of this House.
The raising of the standards of sanitation in this country since 1848 has been very largely secured by the work of these men, and I hope the House will decide to retain a title which I still regard as the best description of the work which they have to do.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I find myself in agreement with hon. Members who have suggested that the Bill is a nonsense and ought to be thrown out. It seems to me that when we consider whether legislation should be passed, the

first duty of Parliament is to decide whether the legislation is necessary or whether it is not. It also seems to me that if we were to pass this Bill it would be totally unnecessary legislation—and one of the difficulties in Parliament is that we pass too much legislation and clutter up the Statute Book with more legislation than people have time to digest. I therefore suggest, on the question of principle, that when a Bill appears to be totally unnecessary, as this Bill appears to be, the House would be very unwise indeed to pass it.
It might be worth while to say a few words about the history of the Bill going through the House. It has been objected to on various occasions when it has come before the House and it slipped through when very low on the list of Bills late on a Friday afternoon.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: My hon. Friend is inaccurate when he says there has been objection to it. There has not.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have, in fact, objected to it myself, so that my hon. Friend is quite wrong there. The Bill got through late on a Friday afternoon when it was low in the list.
I should like to associate myself with remarks which have been made drawing attention to the honour in which the title of sanitary inspector is held. It is a title which devotes in the public mind a body of men who have served the public well and will continue to serve it well. I hope that we shall not suggest that they should drop this honourable name.
When I consulted my own local authority in Deal on this subject, I was told that it thought that this Bill was undesirable, that there was a danger of confusion between other officers in the office of the medical officer of health, that it thought that this House would be wise to reject the Bill and suggested that that was the appropriate line of action. I must admit that I fully endorse that view, and I hope that the House will reject the Bill as unnecessary and unwanted.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: I hope that my hon. Friends will not attempt to defeat this Bill on Third Reading. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn)


about the somewhat easy way in which we change titles these days, and of course, the good old example of the rodent operative was brought up. In other parts of the world, this process has been taken to great lengths. A liftman is a lift operator, a car is an automobile, and I was once told that a boxing booth was an emporium for fisticuff encounters. I would say that this matter is of a rather different character.
It was suggested by one hon. Member opposite that if we were to start changing the title of local government officers, we should start with the clerk of the council because that title was out of date. If all the clerks in the country through their association wanted to change their name, if their professional association had already changed its name, if there had been a Government Department considering the matter which recommended that there should be a change of name, and if it was thought that recruiting would be improved by a change of name, I would have been in favour of some change of the title "clerk to the council". These considerations do not apply in that particular cases, but they do, in fact, apply in the case of sanitary inspectors.
The hon. Member says that the name "sanitary inspector" is an honourable name and that we are going to have it. I am reminded of the old story of a man in Hyde Park who, working himself up, said, "Comrades, when the Red Revolution comes, you are going to live in Park Lane." One man said, "I don't want to live in Park Lane." The reply was, "When the Red Revolution comes, comrade, you will live where we tell you to live." That is rather the sort of thing connected with this honourable title.
Everyone says, "What a fine body of men they are, and what an honourable title it is." But this honourable and fine body of men have decided together that they would rather have a name which more accurately describes their calling.

Mr. Hobson: It does not.

Mr. Beswick: It is no good my hon. Friend saying that it does not. I believe that it does, and in this case the men concerned, and to whom tribute has been paid by all speakers, are the best persons to judge. They believe it to be the case. If it helps them, inspires them and encourages recruitment, and if the Govern-

ment are satisfied that we should accept the Bill, I personally believe that we ought to accept it and that it would be wrong at this time to oppose it on Third Reading.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: It appears to me that the hon. Members who want this Bill are not very enthusiastic about it. We have nine names on the back of the Bill. Until ten minutes ago, there were two of those hon. Members in the House. One came in, went out and has come back again, so now we have three actual supporters of the Bill in the House.
I regard the sanitary inspector as being a member of a very honourable profession. I should not like to see the name go. I have not been engaged in local government for as long as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has been. It was in 1921 that I first entered the Birmingham City Council, and because I represented a slum ward, I immediately contacted the sanitary inspector's department. I found some very good friends there in fighting slum landlordism and the terrible living conditions which existed. That fine corps of men are "sanitary inspectors" in Birmingham.
Chief Inspector Turley, now retired, was a man of great courage and great ability. In the early days he had on his health committee some of the worst of property owners in Birmingham as councillors and aldermen, but he never lacked the courage to stand up to them and fight. He was of the utmost assistance to those of us in Birmingham who were fighting, if not for the abolition of the slums, at least for amelioration of the conditions of the people who lived in them.
I have represented three slum wards in the City of Birmingham in my municipal career. The first was called Rotton Park—a very descriptive name. I see the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) smiling, because he knows the ward to which I am referring. These sanitary inspectors are enshrined in the hearts of all those who over the years have fought—[Laughter.] There is nothing to laugh about—against slum landlordism and intolerable living conditions. Why should we change their designation now?

Mr. Beswick: Has the hon. Member asked these honourable men whether they want their name changed?

Mr. Simmons: I do not know whether they want their name changed. They could get their name changed through a deed poll. Those of us who believe in the old traditions of local government—

Sir Ian Fraser: Is Rotten St. still called Rotten St.?

Mr. Simmons: Rotton Park.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it still called that?

Mr. Simmons: It has improved a bit as a result of the work of the Labour members on the city council and the sanitary inspectors.
In the interests of the traditions of local government let us keep this name. I now represent an area outside Birmingham in the Black Country where people call them not sanitary inspectors, nor the newfangled name in the Bill, but "nuisance men".

10.19 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I should declare an interest as Vice-President of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association. I confess that I am a little surprised to find the House at this time of the evening taking so much notice of this very modest proposal. It seems to me that when we have a very great shortage of sanitary inspectors and when it is clear that this body of people, to whom tributes have been paid from both sides of the House, almost unanimously desires this change, it would be very foolish of us to reject the proposal.
The most that can be said against it is that it does not make very much difference and that it makes no change at all in the very important duties that these men have to perform. However, I can assure the House that these men do wish the change to be made, and in view of the work they do—

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is there not a wide divergence of opinion among sanitary inspectors on this question?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I know of no sanitary inspectors who oppose this proposal. It has been discussed by their official bodies, and they have unanimously recommended their desire to support this change. It is

just not the case that these people have a very narrow field of responsibility. This House itself has imposed upon them fresh and heavy responsibilities in recent successive Acts, in regard to food legislation and clean air. There are all too few of these people to carry out their duties. I hope that the House will do nothing which will in any way set back the esteem in which they are held, and that we shall do nothing to dissuade them from encouraging every form of recruitment. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): This Bill has the full support of my right hon. Friend. I want to take up a few of the points which have been made by hon. Members who oppose it. First, it is fair to remind the House that these officers were originally called inspectors of nuisances. When the title was changed to "sanitary inspector," the term "sanitary" had the meaning of "pertaining to health," which was a much wider meaning than is given to it today. In present-day parlance the public does not think of the term as covering such matters as food regulations and the sanitary inspectors' duties in regard to them, or clean air and many other major items of legislation.

Mr. Hobson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me in what way the duties of a sanitary inspector are different from what they were because of the passing of the Clean Air Bill?

Mr. Blenkinsop: rose—

Mr. Hobson: My hon. Friend should curb himself. He is getting a little too excited. Can the hon. Lady say what difference there is in the duties of the sanitary inspector as a result of the passing of the Clean Air Bill?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: That Measure gives wider powers to local authorities, which will naturally mean wider powers and more work for local authority officers. The hon. Member knows that very well. Food regulations also bring greater responsibilities and more work to local authority officers.

Mr. Hobson: Read the Bill.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Today the word "sanitary" has come to bear a restricted meaning, not associated with health in its widest sense.

Mr. Hobson: That is wrong.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, but it was the opinion of a working party set up by the hon. Member's party in 1951, that the term "sanitary inspector" was no longer a correct description of the work and duties of these officers. The working party reported in 1953, unanimously recommending that the term was an anachronism and also a deterrent to recruitment. I would remind hon. Members opposite that many of them—including the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)—have been very active in asking what we were going to do to help the recruitment of sanitary inspectors. The Bill follows the recommendation of the working party which they themselves set up, and yet certain of them propose to reject it.
I would also point out the wide diversity that now exists in the work falling to sanitary inspectors. The investigations of the working party showed that only a small percentage of the time of sanitary inspectors is now spent upon duties traditionally ascribed to them, such as the inspection of drainage. Such matters take up only 6·1 per cent. of their time, and scavenging, cleansing and refuse removal account for 3 per cent. That is a total of under 10 per cent. and the other 90 per cent. of time is taken up by a much wider variety of duties on health matters than is connoted by the word "sanitary" in the mind of the public.
It is only fair to say that not only was there this unanimous recommendation from the working party, but that one of the bodies representing the members of the profession, the Royal Sanitary Institute, has changed its title to that of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health basically because the terms of its

work and the qualifications of its members are much wider than the word "sanitary" implies. The Institution of Sanitary Engineers has also adopted as its new title the designation "Institution of Public Health Engineers."
I find it hard to reconcile the tributes paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House—whether they are for or against the Bill—with the opinion of the minority that this fine body of men which has done such magnificent work for the community is incapable of coming to a responsible decision about its own designation. There has been an independent inquiry into this, and there has been a very strong recommendation—

Mr. Hobson: Why not have a Royal Commission?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman does not like the composition of the working party he must remember that his own Government appointed the members to it.

Mr. Hobson: I am suggesting a Royal Commission.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If an independent investigation by a committee, the whole desire of which was to improve the recruitment of sanitary inspectors and to fill many of the vacancies which now exist, has recommended this change, and if at the same time the profession feels that thes new title would aid recruitment, then I hope that the House will give a unanimous Third Reading to the Bill.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.